1989 PLP 713 (MLD)
ABDUL HAMID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 713 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rashid Aziz Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 713 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 713 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rashid Aziz Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 713 (MLD) (ABDUL HAMID‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zaka‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Surety bond, forfeiture of‑‑Accused reported to‑ have proceeded abroad‑‑Notice issued to surety on absence of accused would automatically mean forfeiture of his bond. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Surety bond‑‑Forfeiture of full amount‑‑Notice issued to surety on absence of accused‑‑Accused joining proceedings later‑Forfeiture of entire amount of bond, held, was not called for‑‑Surety amount reduced. Dildar and another v. The State P L D 1963 SC 47 ref. Anwar Zahid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Surety bond‑‑Forfeiture of full amount‑‑Notice issued to surety on absence of accused‑‑Accused joining proceedings later‑Forfeiture of entire amount of bond, held, was not called for‑‑Surety amount reduced. Dildar and another v. The State P L D 1963 SC 47 ref. Zaka‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner Anwar Zahid for the State. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioner Abdul Hamid, stood surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 in favour of one Inayat Ali who was involved in a case under section 377, P.P.C. read with section 12 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance,‑1979. The accused in the said case appeared for sometime but absented himself on 29‑3‑1983. The learned trial Court issued notice to the surety (the petitioner) who sought time to produce the accused. The trial Court kept on adjourning the case from time to time for 11 months. Thereafter, the surety‑was forfeited in the whole amount. It is contended by learned counsel that the trial Court has erred in law because it should have passed an: order forfeiting the bond, and, thereafter a notice should have been .given to the petitioner for the realisation of the amount. The learned counsel has also relied upon some 'reported cases. Submits that later on the accused joined the proceedings, therefore, the entire amount of surety may not have been forfeited:
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The Court was informed by the Process Serving Agency that the accused had proceeded abroad, therefore, a notice was issued to the surety. In these circumstances, it is clear that A before notice to the surety was given the Court was already apprised of the fact that the accused in the case was not available. The contention of learned counsel that the bond should have been forfeited first is without substance, because the moment notice was given to the petitioner it automatically meant the forfeiture of the surety bond. As for as the other contention that the whole amount should not have been forfeited has some substance .especially when the accused later on did join the proceedings. In such circumstances, relying upon Dildar and another v. The State P L D 1963 SC 47, I reduce the amount to be‑forfeited from Rs.20,000 to Rs.5,
000. With this reduction in the amount of surety 'the revision is disposed of. The file shall be sent hack forthwith to the learned trial Court .for necessary action. S.A./A‑542/LAmount reduced.