1988 PLP 380 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 380 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 380 (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 1988 PLP 380 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 380 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HANIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharl for Petitioner.
- Akhtar Baig for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 514‑‑Forfeiture of security‑‑Surety directed by Trial Court to appear before him and to show cause as, to why his security should not be confiscated in favour of State‑‑Nothing existed on record to show whether he tendered any explanation or whether his explanation was taken into consideration by Court Surety petitioner directed to approach Trial Court with explanation and Trial Court directed to hear him and thereafter decide matter in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharl for Petitioner. Akhtar Baig for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1988. The petitioner Muhammad Hanif has moved this criminal revision under section 439 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 4‑10‑1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, Camp at Samundari, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the surety amount of Rs. 10,000 as penalty and further warrant of attachment and sale of his movable property was ordered to be issued.
2. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was not at all served by the notice issued to him by the trial Court. Learned counsel next argued forcefully that the notice issued to the petitioner does not disclose as to whether the same pertained to the petitioner or not. Learned counsel submitted that unless and until an opportunity of being heard is provided to the petitioner, no adverse order can be passed by the learned trial Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The impugned order dated 9‑9‑1987 (Annexure `A') shows that the petitioner was directed to appear before the trial Court and to show cause as to why his security amount be not confiscated in favour of the State. There is nothing on the record to show as to whether the explanation was submitted by the petitioner before the trial Court and that explanation was taken into consideration by the learned trial Court or not. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach the learned trial Court with the explanation. The learned trial Court shall hear the petitioner and shall thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of. M.Y.H./M‑539/L Case remanded.