2003 PLP 582 (YLR)
HAJI SOOMRO‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 582 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Nabi Soomro, J |
| Parties | HAJI SOOMRO‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 582 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 582 (YLR)?
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: 2003 PLP 582 (YLR) (HAJI SOOMRO‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mr. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shaham, learned Additional Advocate‑General in view of the above‑referred decision does not support the impugned order.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑,‑S. 514‑‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13‑D‑‑‑Applicant had stood surety for the accused involved in the case registered under S.13‑D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965‑‑‑Accused had remained absent from the Court for only three hearings on account of his illness which was supported by a Medical Certificate‑‑‑Impugned order imposing penalty of Rs.10,000 on the applicant was set aside in circumstances. Ghulam Qadir Siyal v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 554 ref. Yousuf Ali for Applicant. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, Addl. A.‑G.
Judgment & Decree
Yousuf Ali for Applicant. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, Addl. A.‑G. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur passed on 17‑4‑2002 whereby he reduced the penalty of Rs.50,000 to Rs.10,000 upon the applicant/surety. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision application are that the applicant Haji had stood surety for accused Agha Khan who is involved in a case under section 13‑D, Arms Ordinance pending before the Court of Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M., Sukkur. The accused Agha Khan as per the diary of the case remained absent on three hearings i.e. 3‑1‑2002, 1‑2‑2002 and 2‑3‑2002. On the next date i.e. 14‑3‑2002, the accused Agha Khan was produced by his surety (applicant Haji) as per the time allowed to him by the learned trial Court. However, the trial Court in the circumstances imposed penalty of Rs.50,000 which was reduced to Rs.10,000 in appeal as stated above. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused had remained absent because of his illness and such medical certificate was produced before the learned trial Court and that the absence of the accused was neither deliberate nor wilful. The accused never intended to abscond or evade the process of law. He has placed reliance upon the case of Ghulam Qadir Siyal v. The State reported as 1997 PCr.LJ
554. Mr. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shaham, learned Additional Advocate‑General in view of the above‑referred decision does not support the impugned order. In the above‑referred case in almost similar circumstances, the accused who had remained absent from 25‑5‑1993 to 25‑5‑1994 was excused in his absence and the order of imposition of penalty of Rs.35,000 upon the surety was set aside. In this case the accused remained absent for only three hearings and the reason for the absence is his illness which is supported by medical certificate. In my view the above‑referred case fully supports the case of the applicant. In view of which the impugned order dated 17‑4‑2002 passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The revision application is allowed and disposed of alongwith listed application. N.H.Q./H‑81/K Revision petition accepted