2006 P Cr (PLP)
SARDAR AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARDAR AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 P Cr (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 2006 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 P Cr (PLP) (SARDAR AHMED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Application against
Applicant who stood surety for accused, had urged that he had offered himself as surety purely on humanitarian ground and that he being a poor man, could be excused
Poverty of a surety was no ground
Remedy was available to applicant under the law, to recover amount paid by him as surety from said accused by taking recourse to specific provisions of Contract Act, 1872
Impugned order did not show that any illegality or irregularity was committed by the Trial Court or the revisional court while directing applicant/surety to deposit surety amount
Application of surety was dismissed and he was allowed to deposit amount of surety in instalments.
Judgment & Decree
S. ALI ASLAM JAFRI, J.
1. Granted.
2. Office objection is overruled.
3. Learned counsel has mainly urged that applicant/surety offered himself purely on humanitarian ground and that he is poor person, hence may kindly be excused. He has further argued that notice was not served upon him and that full amount has been ordered to be recovered from him. However, revisional Court has reduced the surety amount from Rs.50,000 to Rs.40,
000. Poverty of a surety is not a ground and, under the law remedy is available to the applicant to recover the amount paid by him as surety, from the said accused with recourse to specific provisions in the Contract Act. The impugned order does not show that any illegality or irregularity was committed by the learned trial Court or the revisional Court while directing the surety to deposit the surety amount. This criminal miscellaneous application is, therefore, dismissed in limine. At this stage, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, requests that the applicant be allowed to deposit the amount in easy instalments. This request is granted purely on humanitarian ground. The applicant shall A deposit Rs.10,000 after every six months i.e. 1st instalment is to be deposited before 30th April, 2005 and the second instalment six months thereafter, so forth so on. He shall also execute a fresh bond/undertaking before the trial Court to be prompt in making payment of the instalments and in case of non-payment of any instalment the entire remaining balance shall be recovered as per law. H.B.T./S-29/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application dismissed.