1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan. J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 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 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan. J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD INAYAT‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdul Majid Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.514‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑Accused produced before Court‑ Penalty of forfeiture of bond reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.1,
000. Sarfraz Hasan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.514‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑Accused produced before Court‑ Penalty of forfeiture of bond reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.1,
000. Malik Abdul Majid Khan for Petitioner. Sarfraz Hasan for the State. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1985. This facts giving rise to this revision are that a case under the Hudood Ordinance was registered against Hira accused. He was allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Narowal. On 25‑10‑1980 Muhammad Inayat petitioner executed bail bonds. The accused was accordingly released. The case was entrusted for trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. Hira accused did not appear before the Court, so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeited the bonds and issued warrants for the attachment of the property of the petitioner vide his order, dated 16‑10‑1984, hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel has not challenged the forfeiture of the bonds. He requested for reduction in the amount to be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this request.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that by now the accused has been produced before the Court. That being the position, I feel inclined to reduce the penalty from Rs.10,000 to Rs.1,000 only. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 1,000 with the learned Additional Sessions Judge within a month failing which the learned Judge may take appropriate action against the petitioner for the recoveries of Rs.1,000 only. M. A. K. Order accordingly.