1990 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. SARDARI BEGUM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SARDARI BEGUM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. SARDARI BEGUM — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Assistant Advocate-General has submitted that the accused is still at large and the applicant has failed to produce the accused.
- I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State. I have gone through the documents produced alongwith the application. In view of the above circumstances while relying upon P L D 1963 SC 41, I reduce the amount of forfeiture from Rs.15,000 to Rs.5,(H)0. The applicant has already deposited Rs.4,700. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs.300 within ten days from today. Consequently Miscellaneous Appeal No.l005 of 1989 has become infructuous. The application is disposed of in the above terms.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Applicant stood surety for accused, but because of abscondence of accused, surety bond of applicant was forfeited directing her to deposit surety amount
Contention of applicant that she stood surety due to benevolence and that she had not gained any monetary benefit by standing surety of accused
Accused having been attending Court for about one year before his abscondence, amount of forfeiture was reduced.
Judgment & Decree
PLD1963SC41ref. Ghulam Sabir Niazi for Applicant. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.-G. for the State. This is a criminal revision application under section 435/439 read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Central, in a case of State v. Majid Mushtaque under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused was granted bail in the sum of Rs.150 (H) with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court. The applicant had stood surety for the accused Majid Mushtaque in the sum of Rs.15,000 in February, 1984. The accused attended the Court upto 18-3-1985 and thereafter absconded. On 8-7-1985 his bail bond was forfeited and a notice was issued to the applicant to produce the accused. On 11-2-1988, the applicant was directed to deposit the amount upto 29-8-1988. The applicant being aggrieved against the above order has filed the present application. Mr. Shaikh Ghulam Sabir Niari, the learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant had stood surety due to benevolence and that she had not gained any monetary benefit by standing surety of the accused.. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Assistant Advocate-General has submitted that the accused is still at large and the applicant has failed to produce the accused. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State. I have gone through the documents produced alongwith the application. In view of the above circumstances while relying upon P L D 1963 SC 41, I reduce the amount of forfeiture from Rs.15,000 to Rs.5,(H)
0. The applicant has already deposited Rs.4,
700. The applicant is directed to deposit Rs.300 within ten days from today. Consequently Miscellaneous Appeal No.l005 of 1989 has become infructuous. The application is disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./S-593/K Order accordingly