2008 PLP 275 (SCMR)
AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 275 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas, Actg. C.J. Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 275 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 275 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas, Actg. C.J. Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 275 (SCMR) (AHMED KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 514(4) & 516-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Forfeiture of surety bond---Petitioner had executed a surety bond undertaking to produce car in question before the court on each and every date of hearing, but on his failure to do so, his surety bond had been forfeited---Case of petitioner was that car in question was snatched by hardened criminals from his possession for which F.I.R. was lodged; and that despite hectic efforts neither the car had been recovered nor the culprits brought to book; it was on that account that petitioner was unable to produce the car before the Trial Court---Petitioner was genuinely unable to produce the car by reason of robbery thereof only five weeks after the handing over of the same to him by the court on superdari---Nothing was on record that F.I.R. lodged by petitioner regarding snatching of the car by hardened criminals from the possession of petitioner, was false or bogus---Local police had not been able to find out any clue of the car which remained to be untraced---Petitioner, in circumstances, was not in default in the matter of production of the car before the Trial Court---View taken by courts below and endorsed by the High Court seemed to be hypertechnical on the face of record---Law would not punish a person without any criminal intent---Petitioner, who had raised a bona fide defence, could not be said to be wilful and contumacious defaulter in compliance with the terms of the bond---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and accepting same, Supreme Court set aside impugned order of the High Court as well as that of the courts below.
- Ghulam Nabi Soomro, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 14th July, 2007.
- Anwar Mansoor Khan, Advocate-General, Sindh for the State.
- 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate-General, Sindh on behalf of the State.
- 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the defence plea of the petitioner before the trial Court and agitated at the hearing of notice before the trial Court as well as in appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Thatta. Latter has noted the contentions but not been able to appreciate that same in their proper perspective. It seems that the petitioner was genuinely disabled from producing the car by reasons of robbery thereof only five weeks after the handing over of the same to him by the Court. There is no finding or fact that F.I.R. lodged by him was false or bogus. Admittedly, local police has not been able to find out only clue of the car, which still remains to be untraced. In these circumstances, it would only be fair to hold that the petitioner was not in default in the matter of production of the car before the trial Court and the view taken by Courts below and endorsed by the High Court seems to be hypertechnical on the face of record. In our considered view, law does not punish a person without any criminal intent and in the facts, the petitioner, having raised a bona fide defence cannot be said to be wilful and contumacious defaulter in compliance with the terms of the bond. It is for this reason that learned Advocate-General, Sindh fairly concedes and is unable to support the view taken by the Courts below.
Headnotes / Summary
Anwar Mansoor Khan, Advocate-General, Sindh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. C.J.
This petition is directed against High Court of Sindh order, dated 11-12-2006 dismissing petitioner's criminal revisions against forfeiture of surety bond in respect of Suzuki Car Cultus Registration No.AEB-263 obtained by him on Superdari from the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur Sakro at Gharo.
2. Petitioner had executed a surety bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 on 16-9-2004 undertaking to produce the same before the Court on each and every date of hearing but on his failure to do so, his bond has been forfeited. It is the case of the petitioner that the car was snatched by hardened criminals from his possession on or about 19-10-2004, for which F.I.R. No.130 was lodged at Police Station Liaqatabad, Karachi on 25-10-2004 and despite hectic efforts neither the car has been recovered nor the culprits brought to book. It was on this account that the petitioner was unable to produce the car before the trial Court, who considering the failure to produce the car as wilful and contumacious default, proceeded to direct the recovery of bond amount from him in terms of section 514(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908. Petitioner challenged the order before the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta, was concurred with the view of the trial Court. Petitioner challenged orders of both the Courts before the High Court but without any success, hence this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate-General, Sindh on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the defence plea of the petitioner before the trial Court and agitated at the hearing of notice before the trial Court as well as in appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Thatta. Latter has noted the contentions but not been able to appreciate that same in their proper perspective. It seems that the petitioner was genuinely disabled from producing the car by reasons of robbery thereof only five weeks after the handing over of the same to him by the Court. There is no finding or fact that F.I.R. lodged by him was false or bogus. Admittedly, local police has not been able to find out only clue of the car, which still remains to be untraced. In these circumstances, it would only be fair to hold that the petitioner was not in default in the matter of production of the car before the trial Court and the view taken by Courts below and endorsed by the High Court seems to be hypertechnical on the face of record. In our considered view, law does not punish a person without any criminal intent and in the facts, the petitioner, having raised a bona fide defence cannot be said to be wilful and contumacious defaulter in compliance with the terms of the bond. It is for this reason that learned Advocate-General, Sindh fairly concedes and is unable to support the view taken by the Courts below.
5. For the aforesaid facts, circumstances and reasons, we convert this petition into appeal and, on acceptance, set aside impugned, order of the High Court as well as orders of the Courts below. H.B.T./A-73/SC Order accordingly.