1990 PLP 1300 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1300 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1300 (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 1990 PLP 1300 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1300 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Rab Nawaz Noon, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 1990.
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 6‑6‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in Criminal Revision No.129 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.514‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/392‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Petitioner had stood surety for the accused simply due to his intimacy with him being a co‑villager‑‑‑Accused who had absconded during trial proceedings had been arrested with the efforts of petitioner‑‑‑Petition was in the circumstances converted into appeal and the amount of penalty was reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,
000. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑The petitioner stood surety for the accused who was facing trial under section 302/307/392, P.P.C. The accused absconded during the trial proceedings and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. A penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court. The petitioner approached the High Court but without any success.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the efforts of the petitioner the accused has been arrested and now he is in custody and facing the trial.
3. The accused is a co‑villager of the petitioner and on account of this intimacy, the petitioner stood surety for the accused. There was no other consideration. As the accused has been arrested with the efforts of the petitioner, this petition is converted into appeal. The amount of penalty is reduced to Rs.5,
000. With this modification in the judgment of the High Court, this appeal is allowed. N.H.Q./M‑1280/S Order accordingly.