1987 PLP 2326 (MLD)
NOOR SAMAND — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2326 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | NOOR SAMAND — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2326 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2326 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2326 (MLD) (NOOR SAMAND — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Mukhtar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S.514--Surety bond, forfeiture of--Petitioner, a surety, 'having received notice, appearing in Court and on the next date succeeded in producing accused--Held: Although technically default was committed on absence of accused on the very first date, yet the sense of responsibility shown by petitioner by producing accused, demanded a more considerate and a lenient view--Confiscation of surety amount of Rs.10,000 reduced to Rs.500 in circumstances. Amjad Hussain for A.-G. for the Sttlte.
Judgment & Decree
Hamid Mukhtar for Petitioner. Amjad Hussain for A.-G. for the Sttlte. Date of hearing: 23rd June, 1985. Nur Samand son of Ahmad Din had stood surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- for Muhammad Akbar son of Muhammad Sadiq or, his having been granted bail for offences under Section 302/34/109, P.P.C. in case F.I.R. No. 81 dated 29-4-1982, Police Station Chuchak. The accused did not appear in the Court on 4-2-1985. He absented on, the next three dates as well, i.e. 21-2-1985, 11-3-1985 and 24-3-1985.
2. On service of notice issued by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, Nur Samand appeared in the Court on 24-3-1985. He was issued a notice to show cause why the surety bond filed by him be not confiscated because of absence of Muhammad Akbar accused. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 11-4-1985, Nur Samand produced Muhammad Akbar in the Court. He was arrested and sent to jail. On the same date, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara directed the confiscation of a sum of Rs.10,000/- out of the surety bond of Nur Samand.
3. Nur Samand has challenged the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of revision petition.
4. As is apparent from the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner having received notice, had appeared on 24-3-1985 and on the next date succeeded in producing the accused. Although technically the default had been committed on the absence of the accused on the very first date, but the sense of responsibility shown by the petitioner by producing the accused on a notice having been served upon him, demanded a more considerate treatment and a lenient view. Keeping in view the prompt sense of responsibility shown by the petitioner, I feel that the order of confiscation of a sum of Rs.10,000/- out of the surety bond, is not only severe but harsh also. In the circumstances, the order of confiscation of a sum of Rs.10,000/- is altered to that of Rs.500/- (Rs. five hundred only). If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within 15 days, learned Additional Sessions Judge shall take legal steps to recover the same. S.G.D./N-60/L Order accordingly.