1991 P Cr (PLP)
Subedar (Retd.) FATEH KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Subedar (Retd.) FATEH KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 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 1991 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: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (Subedar (Retd.) FATEH KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Abdul Majid Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S.514
Sureties (petitioners) had not given any undertaking to the effect that accused would appear before Military Court-- Assistant Commissioner, therefore, had no authority to forfeit the bail bonds-- Order whereby bail bonds furnished by petitioners were forfeited was set aside in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S.514
Sureties (petitioners) had not given any undertaking to the effect that accused would appear before Military Court-- Assistant Commissioner, therefore, had no authority to forfeit the bail bonds-- Order whereby bail bonds furnished by petitioners were forfeited was set aside in circumstances. Rana Abdul Majid Khan for Petitioners. Sheikh A. Bari for the State. Date of hearing: 26th March, 1991. This criminal revision arises from the judgment of learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat, whereby he on 13-4-1981, forfeited the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners to the extent of Rs."15,000 each. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Assistant Commissioner was dismissed by the learned District Magistrate, Gujrat, on 23-7-1983.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the bail was not granted by the Assistant 'Commissioner and in the bail bonds neither the accused nor the petitioners/sureties had given any undertaking to the effect that in case of the failure of the accused to appear before the Military Court, they will pay the penalty of Rs.25,000, therefore, the entire proceedings under section 514 of the Cr.P.C. were illegal. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that since the sureties had not given any undertaking to the effect that the accused will appear before the Military Court, so the Assistant Commissioner had no authority to forfeit the bail bonds. This being the position, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. N.H.Q./F-251/L Revision accepted.