1991 P Cr (PLP)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARDAR MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (SARDAR MUHAMMAD and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Khalilur Rehman for Petitioners. Ch. M. Mansha for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Petitioners stood sureties for an accused person who absented himself from Court
Petitioners showed their inability to produce accused but later on by their efforts accused was produced before Court
Petitioners though were liable for forfeiture of their bonds but the amount was reduced in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 514
Petitioners stood sureties for an accused person who absented himself from Court
Petitioners showed their inability to produce accused but later on by their efforts accused was produced before Court
Petitioners though were liable for forfeiture of their bonds but the amount was reduced in circumstances. Sh. Khalilur Rehman for Petitioners. Ch. M. Mansha for the State. Date of hearing: 17th February 1991. The facts leading to the filing of this Criminal Revision are that one Shaukat Ali was being proceeded against for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. in pursuance of a case registered against him in the year 1981. The accused was allowed bail, and the petitioners, namely, Sardar Muhammad and Chiragh Din stood his surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 each. The accused failed to appear before the Court on 17-11-1980, therefore, his bail bond was forfeited and warrants of arrest were issued. Notices to the petitioners were also issued but they could not furnish any explanation in respect of accused's absence. Later on, the sureties made efforts and produced the accused, therefore, the Court stopped further proceedings regarding the recovery of the remaining amount of surety bonds.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners did produce the accused before the trial Court and, in such circumstances, effectively discharged their liability therefore, they should not have been penalized.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The petitioners earlier when appeared before the trial Court, they showed their inability to produce the accused and sought pardon. In these circumstances, I feel, they had become liable for the forfeiture of the surety bonds. However, I have noticed that the amount was too excessive as far as petitioner No.2 is concerned. From petitioner No.l Sardar Muhammad, only Rs.2,000 were recovered, and from petitioner No.1 Chiragh Din the recovery of Rs.7,000 was made. In these circumstances, while dismissing the Revision I reduce the amount to be forfeited, to Rs.2,000 qua each petitioner. With this observation, the Revision is disposed of. S.A./S-868/L Order accordingly.