1976 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 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 1976 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑ S. 514‑Security‑bond, forfeiture of‑Court forfeiting security bond straightaway on accused failing to attend Court on one of dates of hearing‑Impugned order however, passed without notice to surety and surety on coming to know, producing accused in Court‑Order set aside, in circumstances.‑[Security bond, forfeiture of].
- Rana Abdur Rahim Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 18th May 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 514‑Security‑bond, forfeiture of‑Court forfeiting security bond straightaway on accused failing to attend Court on one of dates of hearing‑Impugned order however, passed without notice to surety and surety on coming to know, producing accused in Court‑Order set aside, in circumstances.‑[Security bond, forfeiture of]. Rana Abdur Rahim Khan for Petitioner. Naeem Malik for the State. Date of hearing : 18th May 1976. This is a revision by Muhammad Ramzan against the order of District Magistrate, Sahiwal, dated 11‑8‑1975.
2. The facts, briefly, are that Muhammad Ramzan stood surety for one Muhammad Amin who was accused of offence under section
379. P. P. C. Muhammad Amin/did not appear on one of the hearing. The present petitioner was, therefore, required to produce him. He failed to produce him. Mehr Sultan Mahmood, learned trial Magistrate, Dipalpur, therefore, forfeited the surety bond to the tune of Ra. 5,000 by his order dated 28‑11‑1974. The petitioner was subsequently able to find out Muhammad Amin, accused and be produced him before the Court. He also filed an appeal before the learned District Magistrate, Sahiwal. He rejected the same. But in view of the fact that the accused had been produced he reduced the amount from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,500.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not at fault. Ere had not received the notice and on coming to know that he was required to produce Muhammad Amin, accused, he, in fact, produced him in Court. He submitted that in the circumstances the order of forfeiture should be set aside.
4. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The revision is, therefore, accepted and the order of forfeiture is set aside.