1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 P Cr (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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Masud for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Sa. 439 & 314‑‑Absence of accused‑‑Confiscation of amount of surety bonds‑‑Accused had given explanation for his absence by submitting medical certificate‑‑Whether medical certificate submitted by accused was a genuine one or not, being a different matter, fact remained that he was alive to situation that he was supposed to attend and in case of absence he had to give some explanation‑‑Accused after having absented himself was arrested on appearance and had been acquitted‑‑Case of mitigation, held, was made out for reduction of confiscated amount‑ Confiscated amount ordered to be reduced in circumstances. Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for the State. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986. The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 11‑11‑1985 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereof the learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed confiscation of sum of Rs.20,000 each from the surety bonds filed by the petitioners in the sum of Rs.50,000 each in the case of Ghulam Muhammad accused on the latter having absented. The revision petition was admitted only to consider the quantum of the amount of confiscation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits; that Ghulam Muhammad accused's act of absence from the Court was because of his having fallen ill. Learned counsel stated that the fact of medical certificate having been submitted by the accused alongwith the bail applications filed by him, is mentioned in the impugned order. The next point urged by learned counsel, for mitigation, is that the accused after dismissal of pre‑arrest bail application, had appeared, faced the trial and has been acquitted. Learned counsel for the State submits that the day, the accused absented, the petitioners incurred the liability and that the facts mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioners do not make out any case for mitigation. The facts of the matter is that the accused after having absented, was arrested on appearance and according to statement of learned counsel for the petitioners, which, I have no reason to doubt, has already been acquitted. The other important aspect for mitigation in this case is that the accused had given some explanation for his absence and in support thereof had submitted medical certificate also. Whether it was a genuine certificate or not, is, of course, a different matter but the fact remains that he was alive of the fact that he was supposed to attend, and in case of absence he was to give some explanation. This fact again, mitigates the liability of the sureties. In view of the above facts, I feel, a case of mitigation is made out for reducing the confiscated amount. The order of confiscation of sum of Rs.20,000 each is altered to that of Rs.3,000 (Rs. three thousand) each. The petitioners shall pay the amount within thirty days. In case of failure, legal steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount. H.A.K Revision partly accepted.