1988 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
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 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 13th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Forfeiture of surety amount‑‑Accused died during Indo‑Pak War and as such could not attend the Trial Court but was marked absent‑‑No action by way of forfeiture of surety amount, held, was called for‑‑Impugned order set aside, in circumstances. Ch. Latif and S.M. Zubair,Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Forfeiture of surety amount‑‑Accused died during Indo‑Pak War and as such could not attend the Trial Court but was marked absent‑‑No action by way of forfeiture of surety amount, held, was called for‑‑Impugned order set aside, in circumstances. Ch. Latif and S.M. Zubair,Addl. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 13th January, 1988. The petitioner, Muhammad Yaqoob, has moved this revision petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. praying therein that the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below dated 21‑9‑1973 and 4‑6‑1975 may be set aside being illegal and improper. The petition was admitted to full hearing as back as 30‑10‑1975.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Muhammad Yaqub executed a bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 for the accused Muhammad Rashid on 7‑1‑1947 in a case registered against him under section 420/461/471/572, P.P.C. It is needless to say that the responsibility of the petitioner was to produce Muhammad Rashid accused in the Court on each and every date so fixed for hearing of the case. Later on the accused absented from the Court and the petitioner failed to produce him before the Court. Ultimately, proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. were started against the present petitioner and notice thereof was issued to him to show cause as to why surety amount may not be confiscated. The petitioner failed to give any satisfactory explanation for the non‑production of the accused before the Court. Ultimately vide the order, dated 21‑9‑1973 passed by the learned Magistrate with section 30 powers, it was directed that the surety amount be confiscated. This order of the learned trial Court was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner General/ District Magistrate, Lahore vide his order dated 4‑6‑1975.
3. In the very out set it has been brought to my notice by the learned Additional Advocate‑General as well as by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused person had died as back as 2‑1‑1972 in the War of 1971 between India and Pakistan. In view of the admitted position that the accused has died, no action is called for in the matter. This fact perhaps was not brought to the notice of the concerned authorities who are responsible for the recovery of the surety amount. In my view since the accused has passed away as such no action is called for in the matter. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed having become infructuous. S.G.D./M‑742/L Petition dismissed.