' AHMED ALI M. SHEIKH, J.-- Through this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, applicant has challenged the order dated 1-2-2012, passed by learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi, Malir, in Criminal Revision No,42 of 2011, (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order"), whereby the order of learned VIth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi, Malir, dated 24-9-2011, passed on application under section 205, Cr.P.C., dispensing with/ exempting personal appearance of the applicant in Criminal Case No,80 of 2010 was set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the impugned order has been passed against the law, facts, equity and principle of natural justice. Per learned counsel before passing the impugned order neither applicant was served with notice nor provided an opportunity of hearing, thus on this score alone the impugned. Order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following case-law:--
(i) HABIB BANK LTD. V. JAMILUR REHMAN 1994,MLD 271.
(ii) NUSRAT HABIB v. MASRUR AHMAD (PLD 1988 Karachi 535);
(iii) ALI MUHAMMAD v. STATE (PLD 2010 SC 623);
(iv) ABDUL HALEEM , v. STATE (1982 SCMR 988);
(v) A. HABIB AHMED v. M.K.G. SCOTT CHRISTIAN (PLD 1992 SC 353) and
(vi) HABIB BANK LTD. v. JAMILUR REHMAN (1994 MLD 271).
3. On the other hand, learned D.P.-G.. And learned counsel for respondent No,2 questioned the very maintainability of the instant application. According to them, after grant of bail, applicant became absconder, as such, his bail was cancelled, therefore, he being fugitive does not deserve any relief.
In support of this contention, learned counsel for respondent No,2 has placed on record certified copy of order dated 15-5-2012, passed by learned VIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi, Malir, in Criminal Case No, 80 of 2010. He has also cited following case-law on the point that fugitive and absconder from law is not entitled to seek any relief:--
(i) ALLAH BAKHSY v. STATE (1982 SCMR 911);
(ii) CHAN SHAH v. CROWN (PLD 1956 Federal Court 43);
(iii) GUL HASSAN v. STATE (PLD 1969 SC 89);
(iv) HAYAT BAKHSY v. STATE (PLD 1981 SC 265);
(v) STATE v. NASIM-UR-REHMAN -(PLD 2005 SC 270);
(vi) AWAL GUL v. ZAWAR KHAN (PLD 1985 SC 402);
(vii) ZEESHAN HUSSAIN KAZMI v. STATE (2000 PCr.LJ 645); '
(viii)IRSHAD BEGUM v. SESSIONS JUDGE (2007 MLD 258) and
(ix) LIAQUAT ALI VIRK v.INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF PUNJAB POLICE (PLD 2010 Lahore 224);
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 has further argued that Notice was issued by the trial Court to the applicant but due to incorrect address service of notice could not be effected upon him. On this argument, he has invited attention of the Court to page 3 of the impugned order, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-- ' It is matter of record that in absence of accused three Advocates filed their Vakalatnamas on behalf of the accused on different dates, apparently signatures of the accused are different on all Vakalatnamas, which creates doubt that whether such Vakalatnamas had been signed by the accused even it is not transpired therefrom that same has been signed at Karachi or Islamabad.
Nothing available on record in respect of residential or business address of the accused at Islamabad Such conduct of the accused creates doubt in the prudent mind regarding his availability in Islamabad".
4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and with their assistance have examined the case-law relied upon by them.
5. Apparently, neither applicant was served with notice nor he was provided an opportunity of hearing by the learned IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi, Malir, before passing the impugned order in Criminal Revision No,42 of 2011. However, it is not disputed by either party that applicant is absconder and his bail has been cancelled by the trial Court. It is settled principle of law that fugitive from law is not entitled to seek any relief. I am A also fortified by the observations repeatedly made by the apex Courts in numerous cases that a fugitive or absconder not surrendering before the Court deprives himself of relief claimed in any proceedings. In the case in hand, conduct of the applicant makes it clear that he is fugitive from law as has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No,2, therefore, he has no right to claim relief from the court in his favour, otherwise it would amount to rewarding him for remaining absconder. With profound respect, the case-law referred to above by learned counsel for the applicant does not attract the circumstances of the present case.
6. For the foregoing reasons and in view of dicta laid down by the superior courts, the applicant, being a fugitive from law, is not entitled to seek any relief. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed along with listed Miscellaneous applications.