1986 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Muhammad Virk for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 18th March, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Ss. 439 & 514‑‑Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act (XXIX of 1977), S.7‑‑Trial Court forfeiting bail bond and imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000 on surety on failure of accused to appear in Court‑‑Appellate Court reducing penalty to Rs.2,500 Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, appeared before Court and case was decided‑‑Held, balance has to be kept between undue severity and undue leniency in such cases‑‑Surety having acted through mere benevolence and not for any financial gain, penalty imposed on surety was excessive in circumstances‑‑Penalty reduced to Rs.500 in circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Khan Muhammad Virk for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 18th March, 1986. Muhammad Aslam petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs.5,000 for one Karamat who was accused in case F.I.R. No. 181, dated 6‑6‑1984 registered under section 7 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 at P.S. Sargodha Cantt. The accused did not appear on 29‑8‑1984 and remained absent on four dates of hearings. Consequently, the bond was forfeited and a penalty of Rs.5,000 was imposed on the surety vide order, dated 29‑12‑1984. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate who reduced the penalty from Rs.5,000 to Rs.2,
500. Feeling dissatisfied with these orders the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
2. No body has appeared on behalf of the State. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has challenged the impugned orders only with regard to the quantum of penalty. He states that the petitioner is not related to the accused and has not obtained any, financial benefit by standing surety for him. it is further submitted that the accused appeared in Court on 30‑9‑1984 and the case against him has since been decided.
3. I have gone through the record and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well‑settled that in such cases a balance has to be kept between undue severity and undue leniency. As the surety appears to I have acted through mere benevolence and not for any financial gain the penalty imposed on him is excessive and the same is reduced to Rs.500. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. H.A.K. Revision partly accepted.