2008 PLP 497 (YLR)
GHOUS MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 497 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J |
| Parties | GHOUS MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 497 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 497 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 497 (YLR) (GHOUS MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 514---Forfeiture of bond---Counsel for petitioner did not press the petition on. merits, but had prayed that amount of surety be reduced on account of poor financial position of the petitioner; that he did not stand surety for any profit or gain or had any relation with accused; that petitioner stood surety on humanitarian grounds---Counsel for petitioner had rightly elected not to press the petition as accused was fugitive from law and petitioner stood surety on humanitarian grounds without any profit or gain---Case being that of reduction of amount of penalty, amount of surety was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000.
- Muhammad Amir Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Zafar, Advocate/ D.P.G., on Court's call.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition on merits but prays that the amount of surety be reduced on account of financial position of the petitioner and that he did not stand surety for any profit or gain or had any relation with the accused. He stood surety on humanitarian ground. Relies on Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47).
2. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. has been heard. He argued that since criminal revision is not pressed on merits, .reduction of penalty lay within discretion of Court.
3. Heard, Record perused.
4. I have considered the contention of learned counsel with reference to record obtaining of the file and find that the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly elected not to press this petition as accused a fugitive from law and he stood surety on humanitarian ground, without any profit or gain. In this view of the matter, it is a case for reduction of amount of penalty.
5. In view of the above, the amount of surety is reduced from. Rs.50,000 to Rs.25,000 on the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.25,000 with the Court, within period of two months, from today.
6. Disposed of with above modification. H.B.T./G-78/L Order accordingly.