1994 PLP 1205 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent.
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1205 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent. |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1205 (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 1994 PLP 1205 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1205 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Federal Shariat Court dated 7‑6‑1992 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 14/K of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 514‑‑‑Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art. 3/4‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 203‑F(2‑B)‑‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑ Contention was that Federal Shariat Court without going into the merits of the death certificate of the accused produced by the sureties had dismissed their revision petition against forfeiture of the whole amount of Rs.50,000 of the surety bond on the ground that even earlier than the date of his alleged death the accused had remained absent from the Court, although the period of such absence of accused did not exceed one month and it was on record that he was suffering from disease‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the whole amount of the surety bond should have been forfeited in these circumstances. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MAULANA MUHAMMAD TAQI USMANI, J: ‑‑The petitioner alongwith another person, namely. Gul Khan, stood sureties for an accused person Taoos Khan who was facing trial under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979 in the sum of Rs.50,000 each. Taoos Khan, the accused person remained absent since 16‑4‑1987 and bad been declared a proclaimed absconder. The learned Sessions Judge, Karachi West who was trying the aforementioned case passed an order on 30‑8‑1990 whereby inter alia he forfeited surety bonds, however, he issued a notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. against the sureties to show cause as to why entire amount of bond deposited in the Court be not finally credited in favour of the Government of Pakistan. Both the sureties appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and on 2‑2‑1992 the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi West passed an order to forfeit the whole amount of the surety bonds. Both the petitioners filed a' Revision Petition before the Federal Shariat Court who on 7‑6‑1992 dismissed their petition in limine. Gul Khan seems to be satisfied with the order passed by the Federal Shariat Court, but Muhammad Aslam the petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against that order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the sureties had produced a Certificate to the effect that Taoos Khan the accused person for whom they stood sureties had died on 17‑5‑1987. The learned Federal Shariat Court without going into the merits of the Certificate has relied on the fact that even earlier than the date of the alleged death of Taoos Khan he remained absent from the Court. The learned counsel contends that the period of his absence before his death does not exceed one month and it is on the record that he was suffering from disease, therefore, it was not adequate in the circumstances of the case to forfeit the whole amount of the surety bond. After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that the question whether the whop amount of the surety bond should have been forfeited in these circumstances requires examination. Leave is, therefore, granted on this point only. N.H.Q./M‑1961/S Leave granted.