2001 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 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 2001 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Murtaza Ali Zaidi for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 514‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/411‑‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑‑Reduction in surety amount‑‑‑Petitioner had stood surety only on humanitarian ground and he did not take any benefit out of the surety bond‑‑‑Impugned order passed by Trial Court was harsh and the prosecution had no objection to the reduction of the surety amount of the petitioner‑‑‑Surety amount of Rs.50,000 was reduced to Rs.25,000 in circumstances which was to be recovered from the petitioner in accordance with law. Muhammad Sarwar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Sarwar for the State. Date of hearing: 11th January, 2000. This revision petition has been filed against order, dated 29‑9‑1999 vide which the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that case F.I.R. No.221 of 1991 under sections 380/411, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal against Muhammad Sarwar. The accused was released on bail by the trial Court and the petitioner stood surety for the accused and he submitted his surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,
000. During the trial of the case the accused did not appear before the Court and so notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was issued to the surety for 14‑9‑1995. He also absented from the Court and his surety bond was forfeited in favour of the State and warrant of attachment of his property for the recovery of surety amount was issued.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against order, dated 14‑9‑1995 which was dismissed on 29‑9‑1999 on the ground of limitation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he will be satisfied if the forfeited amount is reduced. There is no objection from the other side.
5. The petitioner stood surety on humanitarian ground only and he took no benefit out of the surety bond. The impugned order of the trial. Court is too harsh. The State also has no objection to the reduction of the surety amount of the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, the surety amount is reduced to one‑half equal to Rs.25,000, which is liable to be recovered from the petitioner in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of accordingly and the impugned order is maintained. N.H.Q./M‑560/L Surety amount reduced.