MLD 2015

2015 PLP 255 (MLD)

ALI MUHAMMAD THAHIM — Applicant Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, THATTA and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
2013-April-15
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2015 PLP 255 (MLD)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members N/A
Parties ALI MUHAMMAD THAHIM — Applicant Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, THATTA and another — Respondents
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 255 (MLD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 255 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 255 (MLD) (ALI MUHAMMAD THAHIM — Applicant Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, THATTA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 514

Bail bond, forfeiture of

Deposit of surety amount in easy instalments

Scope

No fault on part of surety

Surety being a person of old age

Effect

Accused and co-accused were granted bail and applicant stood surety for them in the sum of Rs. 100,000 each

Both accused and co-accused regularly attended Trial Court

On the day of pronouncement of judgment, accused and co-accused were present in the Trial Court and before the judgment was pronounced, accused slipped away from the court

Bail bonds of applicant were forfeited and he was directed to pay surety amount worth Rs. 200,000 within ten days, and in case of failure direction was given to recover the same as land revenue

Plea of applicant that he was eighty years of age and stood surety for accused and co-accused on humanitarian grounds and not on monetary grounds

Validity

No fault existed on part of the applicant

Accused and co-accused regularly attended court up to final arguments of the case

Trial Court had wrongly directed applicant to deposit Rs. 200,000 as surety amount

Keeping in view old age of applicant and the fact that there was no fault on his part, High Court directed him to deposit surety amount of Rs. 100,000 in three easy instalments

Revision application was disposed of accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

This revision application is filed by the applicant/surety against the order dated 15-1-2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thatta; in which the learned Sessions Judge has imposed full amount as penalty upon the applicant/ surety.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/surety and learned APG for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that applicant stood surety for accused Muhammad Essa and Ramzan in the sum of Rs.100,000 in the captioned crime; both the accused were regularly attending the trial court; trial has concluded and before pronouncement of judgment accused Ramzan slipped away from the trial Court. He further submits that, the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta directed the applicant/surety to pay the surety amount worth Rs.200,000 within ten days, in case of failure, the same may be recovered through land revenue and directed the Mukhtiarkar to recover the penalty amount from the surety vide order dated 16-6-2012; and against the said order, a criminal miscellaneous application was again filed before the same Court, in which the applicant states that the applicant Ali Muhammad stood surety for accused Muhammad Essa and Ramzan in the sum of Rs.100,000 each but trial court had directed the applicant to deposit Rs.200,000 within a period of ten days, same application was dismissed vide order dated 15-1-2013. Learned counsel further contended that applicant is an old man of eighty years of age and he stood surety of the accused persons on humanitarian ground and not on a monetary ground. Learned counsel in the last has contended that, the applicant is seeking mercy of the Court and request for remit of the penalty amount or he is ready to pay Rs.100,000 in easy instalments.

4. Learned A.P.G. opposes the grant of revision application on the ground that applicant is bound to produce the accused on each and every date but he failed to produce the applicant. Learned A.P.G. further supports the order of learned Sessions Judge, Thatta.

5. Having considered the respective contention and perused the material available on record. Order dated 15-1-2013 shows that applicant stood surety of accused Muhammad Essa and Ramzan Ali in the sum of Rs. 100,000 each in the captioned crime/case but learned trial court has wrongly directed the applicant to deposit Rs.200,

000. Order dated 16-6-2012 shows that accused was attending the Court regularly, case was proceeded and it was fixed for judgment on 29-11-2012, after completing the judgment, learned trial Judge came in the Court, all the accused including (Ramzan Ali Thaheem) were present in the Court and before the judgment was pronounced, accused Ramzan Ali Thaheem slipped away from the Court. After 2/3 calls, Ramzan had not attended the Court and the judgment was postponed and the case was adjourned to 11-11-2012; bail bond of accused Ramzan was forfeited and NBWs was ordered against accused Ramzan Ali as well as notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. to surety. Reply to the show-cause notice was not furnished then the learned trial Court imposed penalty upon the applicant and directed him to pay surety amount worth Rs.200,000 within ten days. It is very much clear that no fault on the part of surety; both the accused persons released on bail, they were regularly attending the Court upto final arguments of the case; accused Ramzan and co-accused Muhammad Essa were appearing before the trial Court before pronouncement of judgment, learned trial court has imposed penalty, and enhanced penalty amount from Rs.100,000 to Rs.200,000 and directed the applicant/surety to deposit the amount within ten days.

6. Keeping in view the old age of applicant/surety and of no fault on the part of the applicant/surety; applicant/surety is directed to deposit surety amount worth Rs.100,000 (Rupees One Hundred Thousand Only) in three easy instalments; which commence as follows:- (i) On 2-5-2013 Rs.34,000 (ii) On 1-6-2013 Rs.33,000 (iii) On 1-7-2013 Rs.33,000 The criminal revision application is disposed of. MWA/A-61/Sindh Order accordingly.