1999Y L R 317 (PLP)
JALALUDDIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999Y L R 317 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J |
| Parties | JALALUDDIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999Y L R 317 (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 1999Y L R 317 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999Y L R 317 (PLP) (JALALUDDIN‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.499 & 439‑‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)‑‑‑Acceptance of surety‑‑ Surety could not be disqualified to act as such merely on the ground that he resided at a place far off from the place of trial‑‑‑Most important thing with which the Trial Court was concerned was, whether the person who had offered himself as surety was solvent‑‑Trial Court needed only to verify from the concerned quarters whether the surety had produced genuine proof of his solvency in the sum asked for in the bail granting order‑‑ Sessions Court's order refusing to accept the surety on account of his distant residence was set aside‑‑‑Revision petition was allowed accordingly with the direction to Trial Court to accept the applicant as surety only after being satisfied in respect of his solvency and genuineness of the documents produced by him in support of such proof. Moharram Buledi v. The State 1992 Cr.LJ 916; Habibullah v. The State Criminal Revision Application No.54 of 1996 and 1992 PCr.LJ 2083 ref. Asadullah Memon for Applicant. Arshad Lodhi, A. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This Criminal Revision under section 439/561‑A, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order, dated 24‑2‑1999 passed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, whereby he has refused to accept applicant Jalaluddin as surety for the accused Nazeer Ahmed who is involved in an offence under section 17(3) (Ordinance VI of 1979) being Sessions Case No.262 of 1997 on the ground that the applicant belongs to a village in District Jacobabad and that in case of absconsion of accused it would be very difficult to serve notice on the applicant and compel him to produce the accused.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that this is not a legally tenable ground to stop the applicant from acting as surety. He has relied upon the case of Moharram Buledi v. The State, reported in 1992 Cr.LJ 916 and an unreported decision in Criminal Revision Application No.54 of 1996, Re: Habibullah v. The State, which is also a decision of this Court on the same point.
3. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned A.A.‑G. appearing for the State has agreed with the contention raised on behalf of the applicant in view of the case‑law.
4. A surety cannot be disqualified to act as such merely on the ground that he resides at a place far off from the place where the trial is being held. The most important thing the Trial Court would be concerned about, is whether the person who offers himself a surety is solvent. Reference may be made to another decision of this Court reported as 1992 PCr. LJ 2083. The learned Trial Court needed only to verify from the concerned quarters whether the applicant/surety had produced genuine proof of his solvency in the sum asked for in the bail granting order.
5. The impugned order, dated 24‑2‑1999 which has been passed in Sessions Case No.262 of 1997 is, therefore, set aside and the revision application is allowed with a direction that the learned Trial Court shall accept the applicant as surety only after being satisfied in respect of his solvency and genuineness of the documents produced by him in support of such proof. N.H.Q./J‑38/K Revision petition allowed.