1977 P Cr (PLP)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1977 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 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: 1977 P Cr (PLP) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Fateh Ali Cheema for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514-Security bored forfeiture of
Contention that petitioner was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence in his defence and accused having appeared in Court subsequently penalty of Rs. 1,000 as reduced by District Magistrate was still excessive- Contention, held, had no substance, in circumstances of case- Amount of fine, however, reduced to Rs. 300 following principle laid down in P L D 1952 Lah. 645.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ali Naqvi for the State. Date of hearing : 23rd June 1976. Khushi Muhammad petitioner stood surety in a case State v. Maqbool and others under section 382, P. P. C. on behalf of Ralia accused, for a sum of Rs. 3,
000. On 10-6-1964 Ralia accused absented himself from the Court. 'The learned trial Court found that as the surety has failed to produce the accused; which he was under obligation to do so, it penalised him to pay Rs. 3,
000. On revision filed by Khushi Muhammad petitioner, the learned District Magistrate reduced the penalty from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 1,000 only, vide his order dated 20-4-1965.
2. Hence, this revision petition. '
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not allowed to adduce evidence in his defence, `therefore, he was condemned without being heard; that the accused did appear in this case, therefore, the penalty visited upon the petitioner was excessive as well as 4njustified. He has relied on Sardar Khan v. Crown (P L D 1952 Lah. 645) in which Mr. Justice A. R. Cornelius (as his Lordship then was) held:- "Court should regulate the imposition of penalty in cases of default from the point of view, not so much of assessing the `guilt' of the sureties, in terms of money, but with the object of maintaining the system in integrity. In other words, if leniency towards sureties became the general rule, the whole system of release of accused persons on bail might require to be re-examined to ensure the proper progress of criminal cases. At the same time, it is obviously not necessary or desirable in the average vase that the Court should lean in the direc tion of severity, for this might lead to difficulties in production of sureties, having the effect of overcrowding the judicial lock-ups and other attendant inconveniences." His Lordship was pleased to reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 250, while deciding that revision petition.
4. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, I am afraid, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not of much substance for the reason that is established on the record of this case that the accused did absent himself and the petitioner was responsible to see that he did not fail to appear before the Court but following with respect the principles laid down in the above cited authority, I reduce the amount o fine from Rs. 1,000 to Rs.
300. The petitioner will pay the same within a period of one month or in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
5. With the above modification, the petition is disposed of. ' Revision allowed.