2005 PLP 3305 (YLR)
MUSHTAQUE AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 3305 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J |
| Parties | MUSHTAQUE AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 3305 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 3305 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 3305 (YLR) (MUSHTAQUE AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 28th July, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Imposition of penalty for standing surety for accused
Applicant stood surety for 14 accused persons and out of said 14 accused persons, 4 accused persons having absconded during trial, applicant/surety was saddled with penalty of Rs.50, 000 in respect of each of them
No separate proper order of forfeiture of surety bond was passed prior to issuance of notice under S.514, Cr.P.C. to the surety/applicant
Contention of police that no order showing reason for forfeiture of surety bond was required, was repelled
Notice served upon surety/applicant had shown that it was couched in a defective language which did not meet requirement contemplated under S.514, Cr. P. C.
Show cause notice must be explained and must contain all material facts, details of accusations and specific clarifications
Accused who were facing trial, were acquitted after conclusion of trial as their guilt could not be established
Impugned order was set aside in circumstances. Basharat Ahmed Jatt for Applicant. Masood A. Noorani, Addl. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.
This revision application is directed against the order dated 4-12-2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, whereby he imposed penalty against the present applicant for standing surety for four persons. Precisely stated the applicant stood surety for 14 persons, who were accused of Crime No.83 of 1998 Police Station Jhudo, and were being tried in S.C. No. 170 of 1998 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, out of 14, four accused persons namely Rasheed, Waris, Arshad Jawaid and Irshad absconded during the trial. Consequently the applicant was saddled with a penalty of Rs.50,000 in respect of each of them. It was mainly contended that no proper order of forfeiture of surety bond was passed prior to issuance of notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. to the surety/applicant. When the matter was taken up on 11-7-2005, learned A.A.-G. appearing on behalf of the State took the plea that the bond was forefeited before issuance of notice and such order was passed. A report was therefore, called from the trial Court which has been placed on the record. Perusal of the report received from the trial Court reveals that no separate order for forfeiture of surety bond was passed. Learned Additional A.-G., Sindh faintheartedly argued that passing of a separate order was not the requirement of law. Regrettably I am not convinced by the arguments advanced by learned A.A.-G. to the effect that no order showing the reasons for forfeiture of a surety bond is required. Even otherwise, the perusal of the notice served upon the applicant shows that it was couched in a defective language, as such, did not meet the requirement contemplated under section 514, Cr.P.C. It is well-settled principle of law that a show cause notice must be explicit, and must contain all material facts, details and accusation, and the specific clarifications sought for. Last but not the least the accused persons who were facing trial were acquitted after conclusion of the trial as their guilt could not be established which fact could not be lost sight off. In the circumstances, the revision application is admitted and allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. H.B.T./.M-271/K Revision allowed.