2004 PLP 99 (YLR)
ABDUL SHAKOOR‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 99 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Azizullah M. Memon, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SHAKOOR‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 99 (YLR)?
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 99 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Azizullah M. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 99 (YLR) (ABDUL SHAKOOR‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S. 514‑‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑ Reduction in penalty amount‑‑‑Surety amount deposited by surety on the direction of Court was forfeited as accused for whom surety bond was executed had failed to appear in the Court on each and every date of hearing‑‑‑On request of surety that he was a poor man and could not afford to pay full amount of penalty, forfeited, Court reduced penalty amount of Rs. 25,000 to Rs.15,000 with direction to deposit the amount within specified period.
Headnotes / Summary
Abdul Haleem and another v. The State 2003 SCMR 929 ref. Shafi Muhammad Memon for Applicant. Riazuddin Siddiqi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Shafi Muhammad Memon for Applicant. Riazuddin Siddiqi for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu vide order dated 18‑9‑2003, passed in Sessions Case No.99 of 2001, has directed the applicant/surety to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000 in the Court, the same having been forfeited to the Government for non‑appearance/absconsion of the accused for whom the applicant herein had stood surety for the regular appearance of the accused in the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, but the accused failed to appear and therefore the surety bond thereby stood forfeited. Learned counsel for the applicants/surety has cited Abdul Haleem and another v. The State 2003 SCMR 929 wherein the plea was raised by the surety/appellant of the said reported case that he was a poor person and could not afford to pay the full amount of penalty forfeited to the Government and in consequence of the absence of the accused of the said case on the date of hearing; learned counsel for the applicant has requested that on the basis of the said precedent, the penalty amount forfeited by the present applicant/surety may be reduced. The perusal of the contents of the said judgment passed by Honourable Supreme Court does not describe the original amount of surety bond for which the appellant/surety of the said case had stood such surety, therefore, it is not clear as to what extent Honourable Supreme Court showed the leniency to the surety of the said reported case by reduction of the penalty amount. However, the penalty amount of Rs.25,000 imposed against the present applicant/ surety by learned trial Court is hereby reduced to Rs.15,000 which should be, paid by the applicant in the trial Court within a period of 15 days from this date, failing which the trial Court shall be competent to take further legal action against the surety. The Criminal Revision Application Stands disposed of alongwith listed application. H.B.T./A‑503/K Order accordingly.