1991 P Cr (PLP)
ABDUL RAZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL RAZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 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 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (ABDUL RAZAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zahid Abbasi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, absented from Court and petitioner could not produce him before Court
Surety bond of petitioner was rightly forfeited
Petitioner, however, contended that forfeiture of the whole of the bond was a severe order and that keeping the balance between severity and the ends of justice, amount could be reduced-- Prosecution having not seriously controverted contention of petitioner amount of forfeiture of bond was reduced accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Razaq petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs.10,000 for Mst. Kaneez Bibi an accused in case F.I.R. No.55/88 Police Station Jhang Bazar Faisalabad, registered under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. She absented herself from the Court and the petitioner also could not produce her nor did 'he himself attend the Court when notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was issued to him. So, the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeited the bond in full. He has come up in revision against the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State have been heard. Admittedly the petitioner was a surety, the accused for whom he was surety absented from the Court and so the bond was correctly forfeited. Anyhow learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that forfeiture of the whole of the bond was a severer order and that keeping the balance between severity and the ends of justice, the amount may be reduced. Learned counsel for the State could not seriously controvert this aspect.
3. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The forfeiture of the bond is reduced to Rs.4,
000. This shall be recovered in accordance with law. H.B.T./A-1329/L Revision accepted.