1990 PLP 227 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RASHID and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 227 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RASHID and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 227 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 227 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 227 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RASHID and 2 others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Illahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 4th December, 1986 in Criminal Revision No. 115 of 1987).
S. 514-A
Word (1)
Connotation: -Words and phrases]. The word when translated into English means severally. And if so construed each surety would be separately responsible for the forfeiture and the payment of the surety amount independently of the other surety's liability. They will also be jointly liable for the amount.
S. 514-A
High Court gave benefit to sureties by reducing surety amount from Rs. 50,000 each to Rs. 40,000 each
Beyond this concession, judgment in case of "Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47" was of no help to sureties
Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances. Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S. 514-A
High Court gave benefit to sureties by reducing surety amount from Rs. 50,000 each to Rs. 40,000 each
Beyond this concession, judgment in case of "Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47" was of no help to sureties
Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances. Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47 ref. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Illahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th June, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the sureties for the appearance of the accused in a case of Narcotics against the dismissal of their Revision by the High Court regarding forfeiture and recovery of the surety amount, which however was reduced from Rs. 50,000 each to Rs.40,000 each. Learned counsel has taken us through the bail-surety bonds and has argued that the words written in the surety bonds with respect to the responsibility of joint sureties mean that all of them shall jointly be responsible to pay the surety amount. After some arguments the learned counsel could not press the point any further when he discovered that the word when translated into English means severally. And if so construed each would be separately responsible for the forfeiture and the payment of the surety amount independently of the other surety's liability. They will also be jointly liable for this amount. He, next relying on the case of Dildar and another v. the State (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 47), contended that the petitioners deserve leniency. The learned Judge in the High Court gave some benefit to the petitioners by reducing the amount from Rs. 50,000 each to Rs. 40,000 each. Beyond that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to them. Leave to appeal, accordingly is refused. M.A.K./M-1067/S Leave refused.