P L D 2005 Karachi 278 (PLP)
SHAHZAD AHMED HASHMI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE through Advocate‑General, Sindh‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2005 Karachi 278 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Shabbir Ahmad, J |
| Parties | SHAHZAD AHMED HASHMI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE through Advocate‑General, Sindh‑‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2005 Karachi 278 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2005 Karachi 278 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Shabbir Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2005 Karachi 278 (PLP) (SHAHZAD AHMED HASHMI‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE through Advocate‑General, Sindh‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 514‑‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑‑Petitioner who stood surety of accused approached the Trial Court for return of surety amount without realizing that accused had jumped bail‑‑‑Bail granted to accused was cancelled and bail bond was forfeited ‑‑‑Non‑bailable warrant was issued to accused and petitioner was noticed in terms of S. 514, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Trial Court directed Nazir of Court to encash Special Saving Certificate and deposit the amount in Government head in State Bank ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Petitioner/surety no doubt was noticed to show‑cause as to why penalty should not be imposed, but such notice had not been served‑‑‑If presence of petitioner before Court is taken as a notice, even then impugned order was not sustainable in law for the reason that order imposing fine, had not been passed‑‑‑Impugned order was set aside‑‑‑Petitioner was allowed a week's time to file reply of show‑cause as to why penalty in full amount of bond should not be imposed and on submission of reply, an appropriate order in accordance with law would be passed by Trial Court. Saathi M. Ishaq for Applicant. Ms Akhtar Rehana, State Counsel.
Judgment & Decree
Ms Akhtar Rehana, State Counsel.
1. Granted. 2 &
3. The applicant Shahzad Ahmed Hashmi, who, stood surety for accused Malik Abid approached the trial Court for return of the surety on 13‑10‑2004 without realizing that said Malik Abid jumped the bail. The bail was cancelled and bail bond were forfeited on 15‑7‑2000 and NBW against the said accused and applicant was noticed in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South treated the application as notice to the applicant and passed the impugned order, which reads as follows:‑‑ "Surety is present. The surety (bond) is already forfeited on 15‑7‑2000, Nazir is directed to encash Special Saving Certificate and deposit the sums of Rs.50,000 in Government head in State Bank of Pakistan and report within a week. Rest amount be deposited if interest accrued in the benevolent fund of Advocate in Sindh Bar Council." The order has been impugned through this revision application. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned State Counsel. I have perused the case diaries. No doubt, the applicant was noticed to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed but such notice has not been served as evident from the case diary. Even if I take the presence of the applicant before the Court as a notice even then the impugned order is not sustainable in law for the reason that the order imposing the fine has not been passed. Perhaps, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi South has not bothered to go through the provisions of section 514 of Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to the procedure on forfeiture of Bond. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The applicant is allowed a week's time to file reply of show cause why the penalty in the full amount of Bond may not be imposed. On submission of the reply, an appropriate order in accordance with law to be passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Cr. Revision Application stands disposed of. H.B.T./S‑99/K Order accordingly.