1983 P Cr (PLP)
Syed NAZIR ALI SHAH — ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Z. C. Valiani, J |
| Parties | Syed NAZIR ALI SHAH — ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 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 1983 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Z. C. Valiani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 P Cr (PLP) (Syed NAZIR ALI SHAH — ‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imam Ali Kazi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑--S. 514‑Surety bond, forfeiture of‑Accused persons not abscond ed during entire trial‑Petitioner standing surety not for any mone tary consideration‑Forfeiture of amount, reduced, in circum stances. Dildar v. State P L D 1963 S C 47 ref. Nazeer Alam for the State. Date of bearing : 19th April, 1982. y'
Judgment & Decree
The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that he is pressing the above revision application in respect of the quantum of the forfeited surety bond, in view of the case reported in P L D 1963 S C
47. The learned Advocate on the basis of the earlier referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court submitted, that as there is nothing on record to Show that the applicant stood surety for monetary considerations, but in fact he being neighbour out of benevolent considerations, be stood surety for the five accused persons in question and as such the amount of surety bond forfeited ought to be reasonable, keeping in view the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the earlier mentioned case.
2. The learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted, that it is true, there is nothing on record to show, that the applicant stood surety for monetary consideration and as such the forfeiture of the entire surety bond is not called for and therefore he submitted that amount of forfeiture may be reduced.
3. Keeping in view the above submissions, made by the learned counsel and also the fact that the accused persons did not abscond during the entire trial and regularly appeared before the learned trial Court and in the absence of anything on record to show, that applicant stood surety for any monetary consideration, I would reduce the forfeiture amount of each bond from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 3,000 only, but would otherwise maintain the impugned order.
4. The above revision application stands disposed of in terms of the above order. Order accordingly.