1989 PLP 2747 (MLD)
MAKHDOOM HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2747 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | MAKHDOOM HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2747 (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 1989 PLP 2747 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2747 (MLD) (MAKHDOOM HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdus Shakoor for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514/515--Surety amount--Confiscation--Fact that accused failed to appear in Court not challenged by surety who obviously failed to perform his duty- Confiscation of surety amount thus was not illegal--Amount confiscated appearing to be excessive as main accused stood convicted only under S.13, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and surety also offering to procure attendance of main accused, if allowed opportunity--Amount of penalty considerably reduced to meet the ends of justice accordingly. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State. Date of hearing: 16th April, 1989. The petitioner had stood surety for one Muhammad Hussain son of Nawab for a sum of Rs.10,000, when his sentence was suspended in the appeal filed by him before the Sessions Judge and was ordered to be released on bail. Muhammad Hussain appellant failed to appear on the date fixed for hearing. Non-bailable warrants for his production were issued. The petitioner was also summoned to show cause. After necessary proceedings, his property was directed to be auctioned for recovering the amount of bail bond. He however deposited the sum for which he had stood surety, to avoid the sale of his property. Feeling dissatisfied with the order, he has approached this Court by way of revision petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the last date did not press the petition on merits and prayed for reduction in the confiscated amount.
3. The record has been perused. The petitioner did not deny on appearance before the Sessions Judge of having stood surety for Muhammad Hussain appellant. He also did not challenge the fact of the appellant having failed to appear in Court. The petitioner, obviously had failed to perform his duties. The confiscation of his bail bond, therefore, cannot be termed to be illegal. However, the order of confiscation of the total amount, in the circumstances of this case, seems to be harsh. In that, the person for whom he had stood surety, stood convicted only for offence under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 and had appeared also later. The petitioner on his appearance before the Court had also offered to make efforts to procure the attendance of the appellant if allowed opportunity. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to reduce the penalty imposed upon him. While considering all aspects, I think the confiscation of sum of Rs.3,000 (Rs. three thousand only) would meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. Learned counsel states that the petitioner has already deposited the amount. If that be so, the excess amount shall be returned to him. The record of the lower Court shall be sent back immediately. M.Y.H./M-1277/L Order accordingly.