1992 P Cr (PLP)
ALI JAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1992 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI JAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 P Cr (PLP) (ALI JAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Iqbal Khan Kundi for Petitioner.
- 3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has conceded that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner stood surety for monetary consideration and as such forfeiture of the half of the surety bond was not called for and, therefore, the amount of forfeiture may be reduced.
- 4. Keeping in view the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate-General and also the fact that the petitioner being the brother of the accused stood surety out o: benevolent considerations. I would reduce the forfeited amount of Rs.15,000 to Rs.7,500 only, but would otherwise maintain the impugned order.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Accused having failed to appear in Court, petitioner/surety of accused was called upon to deposit amount in respect of surety bond executed by him
Surety who admittedly was brother of accused stood his surety simply out of benevolent considerations and nothing was on record to show that he stood surety for monetary considerations
Forfeited amount was reduced to half of total amount of surety bond executed by surety, in circumstances of the case.
Judgment & Decree
M. Iqbal Khan Kundi for Petitioner. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, A.A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1989. Ali Jan petitioner, being aggrieved by the order, dated 17-1-1989 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu, by which the petitioner has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000 in respect of the surety bond executed by him, for due appearance of Mir Shah Jehan, before the said Court, in a case under section 302, P.P.C. on account of accused's failure to appear, has filed this petition, on the grounds mentioned therein.
2. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khan Kundi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was pressing this revision petition in respect of the quantum of the forfeited surety bond, in view of the case reported in P L D 1963 SC
47. He maintained that on the authority of august Supreme Court cited earlier, there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner stood surety for monetary consideration, but in fact he being the real brother, out of sheer benevolent consideration, stood surety for the accused and as such the amount of surety bond ought to be reasonably reduced.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has conceded that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner stood surety for monetary consideration and as such forfeiture of the half of the surety bond was not called for and, therefore, the amount of forfeiture may be reduced.
4. Keeping in view the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate-General and also the fact that the petitioner being the brother of the accused stood surety out o: benevolent considerations. I would reduce the forfeited amount of Rs.15,000 to Rs.7,500 only, but would otherwise maintain the impugned order.
5. This revision petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order. H.B.T./1311/P Order accordingly.