1989 PLP 830 (MLD)
IJAZ AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 830 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | IJAZ AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 830 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 830 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 830 (MLD) (IJAZ AHMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑Reduction in confiscated amount‑‑Petitioner stood surety for accused released on bail, but on failure of accused to appear on appointed date, half of surety amount was ordered to be confiscated by Court‑‑-Order of forfeiture of surety bond was maintained, but confiscation of amount was reduced froth half to one‑fourth of amount of surety bond, by High Court. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Muhammad Khurshid for the State. Date of hearing: 7th March, 1989. The petitioner had stood surety for a sum of Rs.1,00,000 for Nadeem Niaz on his being granted interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Nadeem Niaz did not appear or the appointed date. His presence could not be procured in spite of coercive methods used by the Court and the efforts made by the petitioner. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after due notice forfeited the surety bond and confiscated a sum of Rs.50,000 of the surety bond. The order has been challenged through this revision petition.
2. At the time of admission, learned counsel for the petitioner, after having argued at some length decided not to press the petition on merits and prayed for reduction in the confiscated amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the practice normally followed by the Courts is to confiscate one‑fifth of the total amount and rarely one‑fourth too In this connection he has referred to certain authorities as well.
4. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the request. He has submitted that if at all some leniency is to be shown, the confiscated amount should not be less than one‑fourth.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and considered background of the case as well. I feel, confiscation of a sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand (Rs.25,000) from the surety bond of the petitioner will meet the ends of justice in this case. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge of forfeiture of surety bond is maintained but the direction with regard to confiscation of sum A of Rs.50,000 is altered to sum of Rs.25,
000. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a sum of Rs.50,000 has already been deposited. If that be so, the extra amount be refunded to the petitioner H.B.T. /I‑113/L Order accordingly.