ICT-BD [ICT-21] Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2014 Order: 02 December 2014 and defense inadequacy' and 'Azad Judgment analysis 2: Tribunal assumptions' respectively .were posted in his personal blog in January 2013[26.01.2013 and 28.01.2013], after the verdict passed in the case of Abul Kalam Azad. 6. Tribunal, on going through the application and on hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, by its order dated 20.2.2014 directed David Bergman to explain his position on the criticism he made by circulating the articles in his personal blog on 11.11.2011 and 28.1.2013 and it fixed 06.3.2014 for submitting his explanation. 7. The opposite party David Bergman entered his appearance by engaging Mr. Mustafizur Rahman Khan, the learned counsel who in his turn submitted explanation, as directed, detailing and defending his position and countered with the allegation so brought by the applicant. In the written explanation submitted, David Bergman attempted to justify his conduct and accuracy of the comments he made in the alleged criticisms circulated in the form of ‘articles’ in his personal blog. No remorse even to minimum extent he has shown in his explanation. Plainly it is to say, David Bergman intended to contest the matter. 8. In view of above, on hearing both the parties on several dates and finally on examination of the written explanation and also having regard to submission advanced by both sides the Tribunal by its order dated 17.4.2014 initiated contempt proceeding under section 11(4) of the Act of 1973, having found prima facie elements to constitute the offence of contempt by rendering the observation as below: “We are of the view that there have been prima facie elements of contempt in the comments/criticism dated 11.11.2011 and 28.01.2013 made by the opposite party which warrants to draw contempt proceeding against him under section 11(4) of the Act of 1973. Thus, the proceeding under section 11(4) of the Act is hereby commenced against Mr. David Bergman, the contemnor.” 9. Accordingly, This Tribunal directed David Bergman the contemnor to show cause within 15(fifteen) days from the date as to why he shall not 3