1973 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1973 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool K Shaikh, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool K Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Date of hearing : 23rd September 1971.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 514-Forfeiture of bond-Applicant standing surety for appearance of accused in Court A-Case subsequently transferred to Court B and then again to A --Contention that on transfer of case liability of applicant (surety) extinguished, held, had no force-Applicant's prayer for reduction of amount forfeited, however, accepted. S. A. Kirmani for Applicant. Usman Ghani for A. G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 514-Forfeiture of bond-Applicant standing surety for appearance of accused in Court A-Case subsequently transferred to Court B and then again to A --Contention that on transfer of case liability of applicant (surety) extinguished, held, had no force-Applicant's prayer for reduction of amount forfeited, however, accepted. S. A. Kirmani for Applicant. Usman Ghani for A. G. for the State. Date of hearing : 23rd September 1971. The applicant had stood surety for an accused person who eras facing trial in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sukkur. Subsequently the case was transferred to Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Hyderabad, but again, after some time, it was transferred to Special Judge, Sukkur. The accused person remained absent. Consequently the bail bonds were forfeited, and the applicant was directed to pay the penalty. The order was attacked on the ground that since the case had been transferred to Special Judge, Hyderabad the liability of the applicant under the surety bond extinguished and, therefore, the 4earned Special Judge, Sukkur had no power to forfeit the bond and call upon the applicant to pay the penalty. I find no force in this contention. The bail bond was executed before the Special Judge, Sukkur for his appearance before that Court and it was also forfeited by the same Court for the non-appearance of the accused person. The applicant had executed the surety bond and had guaranteed the appearance of the accused person before that Court. `Since that accused person remained absent breach of the terms of the bond was committed and the penalty was entailed. In the alternative the learned counsel prayed for the reduction of the amount of the surety bond. I accept this prayer. I, the fore, reduce the amount from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,
000. With this modification the revision application is dismissed. Application dismissed.