P L D 1989 Peshawar 6 (PLP)
Syed ZULIFQAR ALI SHAH and others Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1989 Peshawar 6 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, J |
| Parties | Syed ZULIFQAR ALI SHAH and others Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1989 Peshawar 6 (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 P L D 1989 Peshawar 6 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1989 Peshawar 6 (PLP) (Syed ZULIFQAR ALI SHAH and others Petitioners Versus STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Shah‑ud‑Din for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Surety bond, forfeiture‑‑Surety bond forfeited without giving intimation to surety that accused had failed to appear and by reason of his default the surety had forfeited the amount of bond and without show‑cause notice as to why payment of surety amount should not be enforced against him‑‑Held, in absence of such prescribed notice, there could be no an order of forfeiture of bond‑‑Order of forfeiture of bond was set aside and case was remanded for proceedings, according to law. 1984 P Cr.L J 14; 1984 P Cr. L J 2892 and P L J 1986 Pesh. 148 (?) ref. Muhammad Aslam Khan A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
1984 P Cr.L J 14; 1984 P Cr. L J 2892 and P L J 1986 Pesh. 148 (?) ref. Qazi Shah‑ud‑Din for Petitioners. Muhammad Aslam Khan A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1988. Petitioners herein had stood sureties for the appearance of the accused on each and every date of hearing in confirmity of the order of the Court allowing ad‑interim bail to the accused on 7‑5‑1988 and fixing the case for hearing on 14‑5‑1988 and since the accused had absented on 14‑5‑1988 so their application was dismissed for non‑prosecution and ad‑interim bail was recalled. Bonds executed by the accused were also forfeited and the petitioners sureties were called upon to pay the penalty i.e. the full amount mentioned in the bail bonds and the bail bonds were sent to the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate for the recovery of penalty. The above order was impugned by the petitioners in the revision petition.
2. There was referred a number of case law on the subject, out of which reliance is placed on 1984 P Cr.L J (Karachi), 1984 PCr.LJ 2892 (Karachi) and P L J 1986 (Criminal Cases) Peshawar 148 (?) which have laid down a rule that sureties are to be called upon first to show cause why amount forfeited should not be paid by them when on appearance the sureties may forward sufficient reasons against the forfeiture of bonds to the satisfaction of the Court in which case the Court may recall his order of forfeiture of the bonds and that in this respect the Court may also make a summary inquiry to accept or reject the explanation against the forfeiture of the bonds furnished by the sureties. In further support I shall refer to the prescribed form of notice to surety on breach of bond in Form No.XLV of the 5th Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure for which the Court intimates the surety that the accused has failed to appear before the Court and by reason of his default the surety has forfeited the amount of bond and accordingly he was required to pay the said penalty or show cause within a specified period as to why payment of the said sum should not be enforced against him. In the absence of such a prescribed notice there can be no final order of the forfeiture of the bonds to be followed by the recovery of the penalty as made in the impugned order.
3. Resultantly on acceptance of the revision petition the impugned order is set aside, and the case is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra for proceeding in the matter in accordance with A law. Cr.M.No.152/88 stands infructuous with the disposal of the main criminal miscellaneous. M.A. K. /660/P Case remanded.