1993 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH DIWAYA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALLAH DIWAYA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (ALLAH DIWAYA — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ozair Chughtai for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365/367
Accused for whose appearance the petitioner had stood surety had appeared before the Court
Record did not show that petitioner either had gained monetarily or had helped the accused in absenting from the Court
Amount of penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed on the petitioner was reduced to Rs.2,000 in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ozair Chughtai for Petitioner. Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for the State. Date of hearing: 13th December, 1992. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 29-11-1992, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby the surety bond executed by the petitioner for the appearance of Muhammad Khalid accused in Court, was forfeited and penalty to the tune of Rs.10,000 was imposed on him,
2. Briefly stated that facts are that the petitioner executed a surety bond in the sum of Rs.15,000 for the appearance of Muhammad Khalid accused (in case F.I.R. No.229/92, under sections 365, 367 etc. registered at Police Station Baghdad-ul-Jadid, Bahawalpur, undertaking that he would pay surety amount as penalty if the said accused would not attend Court in the bail matter pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The said accused however absented from the Court on 13-10-1992 whereupon his bail was cancelled and notice was issued to the petitioner/surety to show cause why the bail bond executed by him should not be confiscated, and consequently on 29-11-1992, the learned Court forfeiting the surety bond ordered the amount of bond (Rs.10,000) to be paid by the petitioner /surety within three days, hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that Muhammad Khalid accused has since appeared before the lower Court and that his absence was not wilful. He further says that he does not challenge the impugned order on merits but only requests for reducing the amount of penalty. Learned counsel for State has not opposed this prayer seriously.
4. Since the accused' for whose appearance the petitioner stood surety, has appeared before the lower Court and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner/surety had gained monetarily or he helped the accused in absenting from the Court, therefore, while maintaining the impugned order I feel inclined to reduce the amount of penalty from Rs.10,000 to Rs.2,000 which shall be paid within one month from the date of this order in the Court concerned. The petition is disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./A-418/L Penalty reduced.