‘Obak prithibi obak korle tumi’ the first line of a poem by the revolutionary poet Sukanta Bhattacharya. He wrote this in a completely different context during the British colonial rule. The British left, and the Pakistani colonial rulers were also kicked out.

Still Sukantha's line is remembered in many instances one of which is when culprits speak loudly. I remembered this a few days ago while passing the press club. I saw a few people fiddling with posters. When a person there was asked, he said that these people had gathered because the government had shut down Tarique Rahman’s newspaper Dainik Dinkal. It was impossible for anyone not to be surprised. The law aside, even common sense dictates that a newspaper release previously granted to a fugitive convicted of murder cannot continue. The people standing there were handing out a pamphlet, one of which I later received. The outlandish things they write in pamphlets are even more ridiculous and insane.

To know the incident in detail, I collected a copy of the Appellate Board's judgment and found that the District Magistrate issued a show-cause notice to the authorities of 'Dainik Dinkal' to fulfill the legal requirement. But the newspaper authority did not respond. The District Magistrate took the decision under the powers conferred by Sections 10, 11, 16 and 20(1) (b) of the Press and Publication (Proclamation and Registration) Act, 1973. When some people appealed to the Press Appeal Board of the 'Bangladesh Press Council' in the name of the authorities, the board adjourned the hearing of the appeal for a long time according to the petition of the so-called appellants.

The so-called appellants have not only resorted to lying that ‘Tarique Rahman is staying abroad' but have tried to mislead the Appellate Board by writing many other bizarre words. It has been said that Tarique Rahman gave the power to Ahmed Azam Khan, a vice-president of BNP and submitted documents to the Bangladesh Embassy in London, but the embassy did not execute it. It is seen that there were some advocates for the appellants. It cannot be unknown to them that when a person convicted in a criminal case becomes a fugitive, no authority in the country can entertain any application presented by him or on his behalf. In the eyes of the law, a fugitive accused is said to be 'outlaw' i.e. out of legal existence.

In this situation, the Bangladesh Embassy in London has done completely legal work, otherwise the embassy would have been accused of illegal activities. Since the embassy is in the non-jurisdictional area of ​​Bangladesh, it was not possible for the officials there to arrest Tarique Rahman and hand him over to the police. In Bangladesh, if it is not done, the concerned would have to be accused.

There is no room for error in the judgment given by the Appellate Board headed by Hon'ble Justice Nizamul Haque Nasim.

The board said, "A review of the said order (of the District Magistrate) shows that the person in charge of the publisher of the newspaper has been staying abroad for a long time without handing over power, has been convicted in a criminal case and has changed the office address and printing press without the permission of the proper authorities."

The Board further wrote, “....staying abroad for a long period of time without transfer of power to the responsible person, conviction in a criminal case and change of printing press under Sections 10, 11, 16, 20 respectively of the 'Printing and Publication (Proclamation and Registration) Act, 1973'. (1)(b) the declaration form (B) of the newspaper issued in the name of Tarique Rahman, publisher and stamper of Bangla 'Dainik Dinkal' and the declaration of printing of the newspaper are cancelled.”

Also mentioned, “Tarique Rahman the minter and publisher of this newspaper, left Bangladesh a long time ago and his period of absence is more than six months. Therefore, the declaration issued in his favor is voidable. Further, the said he has been sentenced to imprisonment by the Bangladesh Court and is absent from Bangladesh. Tarique Rahman is a convicted person. Therefore, it is in no way possible for him to legally act as a publisher and stamper and in no way can the Form (B) filled by him have any effect.”

The board also wrote, “According to the declaration law, this attorney has no value to us. We will look at publishers, coiners and editors.”

“Currently there is no publisher of this newspaper. Tarique Rahman himself could have legally challenged the order, but instead of doing so, the Acting Secretary filed this appeal. The order (of the District Magistrate) was not made against the Acting Secretary. It appears that the general manager has appointed the appellant as acting editor, the publisher is legally supposed to make this appointment.”

A few things need to be said for the information of the readers in the light of the competent judgments of the District Magistrate and the Hon'ble Appellate Board. As Tarique Rahman was sentenced to life imprisonment in the case of murder, the sanction granted to him under Sections 10 and 11 of the relevant Act is definitely voidable, failing which the District Magistrate would have charged him with illegality.

As a fugitive accused is considered invisible in the eyes of the law, no authority can accept any application from him or on his behalf or from anyone authorized by him, so the Bangladesh Embassy in London cannot accept his affidavit. It is a criminal offense to even attempt to execute a fugitive's summons or present it to any authority. In Bangladesh, the concerned notary public would have been charged with a criminal offence.

Thirdly, the Act of 1973 conferred powers on District Magistrates to approve publishers of newspapers. No agent may substitute another person for the publisher. So even if Tarique Rahman had tried to empower the said Ahmed Azam as publisher by proper affidavit without absconding, that too would not have been effective.

It is also to be noted that this appeal was not maintainable at all, as pointed out by the Hon'ble Board, as the order of the District Magistrate being against Tarique Rahman, the so-called appellants had no legal right to appeal.

Only Tarique Rahman could have appealed, but as fugitive it is not possible for him or anyone else to do so. He had the opportunity to appeal to the High Court challenging his sentence, but the appeal deadline had passed several years ago. And so he will be marked as a convicted murderer for all time.

Before concluding, it goes without saying that all the jurists lie about Tarique Rahman's conviction for murder and the fact that he has become a fugitive, only to show him as a foreigner by the Press Council's Appellate Board, a 'semi-judicial' (quazai judicial) tried to mislead the organization and appealed to protect the interests of an absconding accused, it is imperative for the Bar Council to take action against them.

The so-called appeal to the Press Appellate Board to protect the interests of murder convict Tarique Rahman is certainly a punishable offense under our Penal Code, and hence filing a criminal case against them is also necessary to protect the rule of law. In fact, maintaining contact with the Ferrari defendants is also a punishable offence, which they certainly did.

Writer: Retired Appellate Division Judge