2011 SCMR 1555 (PLP)
KHALID UMAR — Petitioner Versus Syed ATHAR IQBAL, CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT PROMOTERS and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 1555 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID UMAR — Petitioner Versus Syed ATHAR IQBAL, CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT PROMOTERS and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 1555 (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 2011 SCMR 1555 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 1555 (PLP) (KHALID UMAR — Petitioner Versus Syed ATHAR IQBAL, CHAIRMAN PAKISTAN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT PROMOTERS and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.D. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing- 19th May, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against order dated 1-10-2010 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed, in Criminal Revision No. 989 of 2010).
Ss. 205 & 512
Personal attendance, dispensing with
Absconded accused
Plea raised by accused through his counsel was that due to visa problem he had been stuck in a foreign country, therefore, his personal attendance should be dispensed with
Absconder, ordinarily had no right of audience but in peculiar circumstances of the case and in view of undertaking given and fair stand taken by State, Supreme Court directed the accused to produce two sureties to Trial Court
Supreme Court directed that if accused failed to appear before court on the specified date, his surety bonds should be forfeited
Appeal was allowed. Respondent No. 1 in person. Azar Latif Khan, D.A.-G. and Mahmood Arif Khokhar, A.D., FIA, Lahore on Court's Call.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was proceeded against in case registered vide F.I.R. No. C-30 of 2007 dated 26-1-2007 at Police Station F.I.A., Lahore. It was alleged that the petitioner got published an advertisement in daily hang dated 8-3-2007 (U.K.) inviting applications for grant of work permit visa for U.K., Canada and Australia without permission of Protectorate of Emigration, Lahore. The petitioner was allowed bail on 16-2-2008, but he left for UK and the bail bonds were cancelled on 19 10-2009 and ultimately the case was consigned to record in terms of section 512, Cr.P.C. on 24-6-2010. The petitioner filed an application under section 205, Cr.P.C. with the trial Court submitting therein that he would appear before the Court in due course; that he was stuck up in U.K on account of pendency of his application for extension of his visa in U.K before the appellate authority. His application under section
205. Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court. vide order dated 25-9-2010, inter alia on the ground that since the proceedings in terms of section 512, Cr.P.C. stood finalized, the case cannot be revived unless and until the accused himself appears before the Court. He filed criminal revision before the learned High Court, which too was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate that it is a hardship case; that the petitioner demonstrated his bona fide by making an application for dispensation of his appearance under section 205, Cr.P.C.; that he is prepared to give an undertaking before the trial Court and would furnish requisite fresh bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court for appearance by or before 1st September, 2011.
3. Learned Deputy Attorney-General who was issued notice on the last date of hearing, has appeared. He submits that although an absconder has no right of audience, but since the petitioner, through his learned counsel, has given an undertaking to appear before the trial Court on the afore-mentioned date and also undertakes to furnish sufficient security before the said Court, he has no objection if his appearance is dispensed with subject, of course, to the afore-referred condition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan. There is no cavil to the proposition that an absconder, ordinarily, has no right of audience, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the undertaking given and the fair stand taken by the learned DAG, we are inclined to allow this petition, provided, the petitioner produces two persons/sureties before the trial Court who would furnish bonds to the tune of 5 million each to the effect that the petitioner will appear by or before 1st September, 2011 and if he fails to appear, the bonds would stand forfeited. Needless to observe that in the event of forefeiture of bonds, the trial Court shall proceed with the matter as mandated in law.
5. The petition is converted into appeal and allowed in terms noted above. M.H./K-5/SC Appeal allowed.