Appellate Division :
(Civil)
Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
Judgment
February 19th, 2015.
Durnity Daman Commission, represented by its Chairman, Dhaka ………….. Petitioner
vs
M Sahabuddin Ahmed and others
………………….Respondents”
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102
Part -III
Fundamental Rights Article 26-47A
It is a settled point that a fugitive from justice is not entitled to any relief from a Court of law unless he surrenders to the jurisdiction of the Court. He cannot claim fundamental rights enshrined in part III of the Constitution. The High Court Division thus made fundamental error in quashing the proceeding in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction in failing to consider that in presence of alternative remedy available to him it cannot quash a proceeding.
On perusal of the materials on record, we find that the writ petitioner has never appeared before the Special Judge. In the writ petition, he has prayed that a direction should be given not to arrest or harass him in connection with the case. This statement is self-explanatory that he has never appeared or surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Court. He was fugitive from justice. . ….. (3 & 2)
Md Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Md. Shahed Alam, Advocate-on-Record, instructed by Md Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents.
Order
This petition at the instance of Durnity Daman Commission is from a judgment of the High Court Division which has quashed the Proceeding of Special Case No.2 of 2008, so far its relates to the respondent M Sahabuddin Ahmed pending before the Special Judge, 7th Court, Dhaka.
2. We have perused the FIR, the Police report and the impugned judgment of the High Court Division. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a technical point of law and submits that the respondent M Sahabuddin Ahmed was fugitive from justice and he never appeared before the Court below and also in the High Court Division. In this connection, the learned Counsel has drawn our attention to a statement in the writ petition. On perusal of the materials on record, we find that the writ petitioner has never appeared before the Special Judge. In the writ petition, he has prayed that a direction should be given not to arrest or harass him in connection with the case. This statement is self-explanatory that he has never appeared or surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Court. He was fugitive from justice.
3. It is a settled point that a fugitive from justice is not entitled to any relief from a Court of law unless he surrenders to the jurisdiction of the Court. He cannot claim fundamental
rights enshrined in part III of the Constitution. The High Court Division thus made fundamental error in quashing the proceeding in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction in failing to consider that in presence of alternative remedy available to him it cannot quash a proceeding. The judgment of the High Court Division is set-aside.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
