P L D 2004 Peshawar 9 (PLP)
MIRA KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2004 Peshawar 9 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | MIRA KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2004 Peshawar 9 (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 P L D 2004 Peshawar 9 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2004 Peshawar 9 (PLP) (MIRA KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H. Zahir Shah for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 8th September, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 514 & 439-A
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4-- Surety bond, forfeiture of
Petitioners stood sureties of accused who was tried, convicted and sentenced by Trial Court
State being not satisfied with quantum of sentence awarded to accused, had filed revision against order of Trial Court
Accused having not appeared in revisional Court, petitioners/sureties were given notice under S.514, Cr.P.C. and surety bonds furnished by them were forfeited with direction to deposit surety amount in State Treasury as penalty--Validity
Petitioners had stood sureties for-accused according to bail bond, to the effect that accused would appear in the Trial Court during trial proceedings
After conviction and sentence of accused, petitioners/sureties were absolved of their legal obligations from responsibility of surety bond submitted by them to Trial Court in respect of case against the accused and they had not submitted bail bond in revision filed by State against the accused and they had taken no responsibility at any stage that they would produce the accused after his conviction and sentence by Trial Court
Order forfeiting surety bond of petitioners had been passed by Court in total disregard to terms of bail bonds
Liability of sureties should be determined on the terms of bond itself and bond should be strictly construed. Mir Mubarak Ali and another v. State 1997 SCMR 571 and State v. Abdur Rehman PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 90 ref. Malik Akhtar for the State.
Judgment & Decree
H. Zahir Shah for Petitioners. Malik Akhtar for the State. Date of hearing: 8th September, 2003. Mira Khan son of Aslam Khan and Raees Khan son of Mom Khan, petitioners, both residents of Muhammadzai, District Kohat, have filed instant Criminal Revision No.96 of 1998, challenging the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kohat dated 29-10-1998, forfeiting the surety bonds and directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.10,000 each in the State Treasury, as penalty.
2. Shortly narrated the facts are that the petitioners had stood sureties for one Ismail Khan son of Nawab Khan, an Afghan Refugee, involved in case F.I.R. No. 169 dated 6-5-1992 registered at Police Station Jingle Khel Kohat, for offences under section 13 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 read with Articles of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Ismail accused was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kohat and having been found guilty was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 22 days' S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500, vide. order dated 29-11-1997. Feeling aggrieved the State filed a revision petition under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. against the above said conviction order. Ismail Khan accused did not appear in the revisional Court and the petitioners were given notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Resultantly the impugned order was passed.
3. I have heard at length Haji M. Zahir Shah, Advocate for the petitioners and Malik Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.
4. A perusal of the bail bonds would reveal that the petitioners had stood sureties for an accused person Ismail Khan, to the effect that he will appear in the trial Court during the trial proceedings. After the conviction and sentence of Ismail Khan, the petitioners were absolved of their legal obligation, from the responsibility of the surety bond submitted by them to the trial Court in the above mentioned case. The petitioners had submitted no bail bond in the revision petition of the State against Ismail Khan accused and they had taken no responsibility at any stage that they will A produce the accused after his conviction and sentence by the trial Court in a revision filed by the State and as such the impugned order has been passed in total disregard to, the terms of bail bonds. Mir Mubarak Ali and another v. The State 1997 SCMR
571. It needs no reiteration that the liability of the surety should be determined on the terms of the bond itself, and for that purpose the bond should be construed strictly as held in the State v. Abdur Rehman PLD 1965 (W.P.) Karachi 90.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the criminal revision is accepted and the impugned order dated 29-10-1998 is set aside. H.B.T./950/P Revision accepted.