2004 PLP 1012 (SCMR)
MEHMOOD KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1012 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J. and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J |
| Parties | MEHMOOD 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 2004 PLP 1012 (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 2004 PLP 1012 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Riaz Ahmad, C.J. and Qazi Muhammad Farooq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1012 (SCMR) (MEHMOOD KHAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th October, 2003.
- SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---Precisely the facts giving rise to the institution of this petition for leave to appeal are that Aman Ullah Khan accused was admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Narowal and the petitioners stood surety for the said accused persons in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each. On 30-8-2000 the said accused did not appear before the trial Court and thus, his bail application was dismissed and in consequence of proceedings under section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned trial Judge imposed the penalty of Rs.25,000 each upon the petitioners vide order, dated 22-1-2001 and on 11-4-2001 on failure of the petitioners to pay the requisite amount of penalty, they were taken into custody and were ordered to be lodged in civil prison, but on the same day, two persons came forward and stood sureties for petitioners' payment of penalty within the next thirty days. Thus, the petitioners were released. Unfortunately, neither the petitioners nor their sureties bothered to deposit the amount of penalty. Petitioners atone point of time moved an, application before the trial Court seeking review of its earlier order, dated 22-1-2001 which was dismissed on 28-4-2003. Thus, the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court, but their prayer was declined through the order impugned.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 2-6-2003 of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Revision No. 438 of 2003).
S. 514
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petitioners had stood sureties for the accused who had jumped bail
Petitioners had failed to fulfill their obligation for quite a long time and did not comply with the order of the Trial Court
High Court had rightly declined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners
Impugned order did not disclose any illegality warranting interference by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused to petitioners accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.
Precisely the facts giving rise to the institution of this petition for leave to appeal are that Aman Ullah Khan accused was admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Narowal and the petitioners stood surety for the said accused persons in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each. On 30-8-2000 the said accused did not appear before the trial Court and thus, his bail application was dismissed and in consequence of proceedings under section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned trial Judge imposed the penalty of Rs.25,000 each upon the petitioners vide order, dated 22-1-2001 and on 11-4-2001 on failure of the petitioners to pay the requisite amount of penalty, they were taken into custody and were ordered to be lodged in civil prison, but on the same day, two persons came forward and stood sureties for petitioners' payment of penalty within the next thirty days. Thus, the petitioners were released. Unfortunately, neither the petitioners nor their sureties bothered to deposit the amount of penalty. Petitioners atone point of time moved an, application before the trial Court seeking review of its earlier order, dated 22-1-2001 which was dismissed on 28-4-2003. Thus, the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court, but their prayer was declined through the order impugned.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the orders of the. Courts below. The petitioners had failed to fulfill their obligation for quite a long time and did not comply with the order of the trial Court. Thus, the learned Judge of the High Court rightly declined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners and the order impugned does not disclose any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit and leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./M-65/S Leave refused.