1999 PLP 2059 (YLR)
QADAR KHAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2059 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Azam Khan, J |
| Parties | QADAR KHAN 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 1999 PLP 2059 (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 1999 PLP 2059 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Muhammad Azam Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2059 (YLR) (QADAR KHAN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zakiuddin for Petitioner.
- Maazam Jamil, Law Officer for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th July, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 514‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/201/34‑‑‑Forfeiture of bonds‑‑ Reduction in amount of forfeiture‑‑‑Original case, no doubt, had ended in a compromise, but the petitioners, who had stood sureties for the accused could not be absolved from the liability of the amount of the bail bonds‑‑ Accused had been acquitted on the basis of compromise in the case‑‑‑Petitioners belonged to a far flunged area and appeared to be poor‑‑‑Surety amount of Rs.50,000 to be recovered from each petitioner was reduced to Rs. 25, 000 in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners namely, Qadar Khan son of Abid Khan and Raza Khan son of Pardul Khan, against the order of the learned District and Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi, Dir, dated 5‑6‑1998, Whereby the learned Court over‑burdened the petitioners of the forfeiture of bonds furnished by them in case F.I.R. No.98, dated 27‑3‑1996 of Police Station Khal Dir under sections 302, 324, 201/34, P.P.C. The aforesaid amount of forfeiture was reduced from Rs.5,00,000 each on compassionate ground to 1/10th amounting to Rs.50,000 each.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the two petitioners stood sureties for one Amir Bahadur accused of the aforesaid case. The matter was compromised between the contesting parties outside the Court and the accused Amir Bahadur left the country for Saudi Arabia for labour. When the case was challenged to Court the accused Amir Bahadur could not appear and consequently his bail was cancelled on 17‑12‑1996 and notices were issued to the sureties for the forfeiture of the bonds.
3. The sureties requested the Court that time may be allowed to them for producing the accused. Finally the accused appeared before the Court on 25‑4‑1998 and he was acquitted in the said case on compromise. It is true that the original case ended in a compromise but the petitioners could not be absolved from the liability of the amount of the bail bonds.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Law Officer for the State and have gone through the record of the case.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not wish to press the merits of the case but requested that the petitioners belong to a far‑flunged area and it is not within their means to pay the forfeited amount. If the amount is reduced to Rs.25,000 each they would willingly pay the same.
6. Since the matter has been compromised, the accused has been acquitted and the petitioners belong to a fat‑flunged area and appears to be poor, therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is genuine. In view of the above the revision is partially accepted and the petitioners are to pay Rs.25,000 each, towards the forfeited amount within one month failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from them in accordance with law. N.H.Q./424/P Surety amount reduced.