1992 P Cr (PLP)
KHAN BAFIADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Shariat Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHAN BAFIADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (KHAN BAFIADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ghulam Sabir Niazi for Petitioner.
- 5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, concedes the proposition and states that as the mistake was made by the Additional City Magistrate, who did not ask the accused or the petitioner to furnish a fresh bond and as he did not take the accused into custody in case of their failure to do the needful, the petitioner should not suffer for the same.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Surety bond is a contract of civil nature and the Court shall construe the conditions strictly.
S. 514
Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4-- Surety bond, forfeiture of
Original bond was meant for the Court of Additional City Magistrate only and in case it was to be available for any other Court also, the same ought to have been expressly provided --Bail bond of the petitioner, therefore, stood exhausted on the transfer of the case from the Court of Additional City Magistrate to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and the bond of the petitioner consequently could not be forfeited for non- appearance of accused in the transferee Court
Order of forfeiture of petitioner's bail bond was set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.
The Petitioner stood surety for bail of his son Khan Muhammad alias Khano, in respect of a case under Article of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for being found in possession of 16 grams of heroin. The bail bond of the present petitioner was allowed by the Additional City Magistrate, on the 5th of May, 1987 and Khan Muhammad was released.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused had been attending the Court of Additional City Magistrate No.VII till 18th of June, 1987 when the case was transferred to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge. Thereafter, he had no notice and so did not appear before the other Court on the first and other dates of hearing with the result that the surety bond of the petitioner was forfeited.
3. The petitioner was then apprehended and brought before the Court on the 12th of September, 1989. On the same date the Court directed that the petitioner be sent to Civil Jail for a period of two months. An application was immediately thereafter, moved on which the Court allowed the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,000 and the remaining amount within 15 days. It is this order which is being challenged through this petition.
4. It, is contended by the learned counsel that as surety bond filed by the petitioner specifically provided that the petitioner shall be responsible for the presence of the accused in the Court of Additional City Magistrate, no penalty for his absence in the Court of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, was attracted and consequently, the impugned order is bad in law.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, concedes the proposition and states that as the mistake was made by the Additional City Magistrate, who did not ask the accused or the petitioner to furnish a fresh bond and as he did not take the accused into custody in case of their failure to do the needful, the petitioner should not suffer for the same.
6. It is a settled proposition of law that surety bond is a contract of civil nature and the Court shall construe the conditions strictly. The original bond was meant for the Court of Additional City Magistrate only and in case it was to be available for any other Court also the same ought to have been expressly provided. The learned counsel for the State urges that there is also the normal practice here.
7. Consequently, the bail bond of the petitioner stood exhausted on the transfer of the case and so we allow this application, set aside the impugned order and direct that the amount of Rs.2,000 already paid by the petitioner in ,Court shall be refunded to him. N.H.Q./724/F.S.C, Petition allowed.