1996 PLP 995 (SCMR)
ZAFAR ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 995 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ZAFAR ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 995 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 995 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 995 (SCMR) (ZAFAR ALI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 1994.
- M. Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 6‑4‑1993, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Criminal. Revision No. 401/1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 514‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.. 185(3)‑‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑‑Trial Court had reduced the amount of surety from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.75,000 which was further reduced by High Court to Rs.60,000‑‑‑Proper discretion had been exercised by High Court and there was no error of law calling for interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused accordingly. Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Kh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 12th June, 1994. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 6-4-1993.
2. The facts to be noted are that the petitioners stood sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each for the accused, who was facing trial under section 302, P.P.C.. The accused did not appear before the Court on I1-3-1991. The judgment was pronounced and sentence to death was awarded to the accused. The accused absconded thereafter. According to the learned counsel, the accused has now surrendered.
3. Notices were served upon the petitioners. The trial Court vide order dated 28-6-1992 remitted Rs.25,000 and the petitioners were directed to make the payment of Rs.75,000 each out of Rs.1,00,
000. The High Court further reduced the amount of surety to Rs.60,000 each. The learned counsel for the petitioners wants further reduction of the amount already forfeited. The two Courts have already reduced the amount. There is no error of law which calls for interference by this Court. Proper discretion has been exercised by the High Court. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave refused N.H.Q./Z-183/S Leave refused.