2007 PLP 927 (YLR)
Choudhry ARIF HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 927 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Rahmat Hussain Jafferi and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, JJ |
| Parties | Choudhry ARIF HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 927 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 927 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Rahmat Hussain Jafferi and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 927 (YLR) (Choudhry ARIF HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- 3. We have heard Advocate for the applicant and A.A.-G. for the State. The latter has not supported the impugned order.
Headnotes / Summary
S.27
Petition was directed against order passed by Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court by which Court had imposed fine of Rs.50,000 upon the petitioner as he had violated the terms of bond executed by him for his regular appearance in the Court
Proceedings were terminated as petitioner was convicted by imposing a fine of Rs. 100,000
Request of petitioner for extention of time to pay fine was allowed, but subsequently he failed to appear before the Court and the Trial Court, without forfeiting the bond imposed penalty of Rs.50,000
Proceedings against petitioner having been terminated after decision, the case was not 'pending' and bond executed by petitioner ceased to operate after the date when proceedings were terminated
No justification existed for imposition of fine on the basis of said bond
Before imposing fine on violation of bond, the Court was required to first forfeit the bond and then issue notice to the concerned person to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed
Said proceedings had also not been adopted as the bond was not forfeited before imposing the fine upon petitioner
Impugned order being illegal, was set aside. Mehmood A. Qureshi for .Applicant. Habib Ahmed, A.A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI. J.
The present revision application is directed against the order dated, 17-9-2003, passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorisms Court No.III, Karachi, by which the learned Judge' imposed fine of Rs.5.0,000 upon the applicant as he had violated the terms of the bond executed on 7-4-2003.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the applicant was served with a notice under section 27 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. In pursuance of the' said notice he appeared before the Court on 7-4-2003 and executed a bond of Rs.50,000 for his regular appearance in the Court. The said proceedings terminated on 3-9-2003 as the applicant was convicted by imposing a fine of Rs.100,
000. The applicant requested for extension of time to pay the fine, which was allowed but subsequently he failed to appear before the Court, therefore, the trial Court without forfeiting the bond imposed "penalty of Rs.50,000.
3. We have heard Advocate for the applicant and A.A.-G. for the State. The latter has not supported the impugned order.
4. It is an admitted fact that the bond of Rs.50,000 was executed on 7-4-2003 for regular appearance of-the applicant in the Court on each date of hearing. The proceedings terminated on 3-9-2003 as the judgment was announced. As such, after the decision, the case was not pending, hence the bond executed by the applicant ceased to operate after 3-9-2003, therefore, there was no justification for imposition of the fine on the basis of said bond. I Furthermore, it is well-settled that before imposing fine on the violation of bond the Court is required to first forfeit the bond and then issue notice to the concerned person to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed. The said procedure has also not been adopted as the bond was not forfeited before imposing the fine upon the applicant. As such the impugned order is illegal which requires interference. The learned A.A.G. has also not supported the impugned order.
5. In the circumstances the impugned order dated 17-9-2003 is set aside. The revision application is allowed. H.B.T./A-11/K Revision allowed.