Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 1091 1975 SLD 1091 1975 PCRLJ 954
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Appeal No. 124 of 1973, 6th February, 1974
TUFAIL ALI A. RAHMAN, C.J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Banaras

VS

The State

Law:

Section:

Keywords: Punishment, Notice, Remand, Case Remanded, Order, Contract, Set Aside, Interference, Penalty, Liability, Procedure, Obligation, Legality, Surety, Forfeiture, Proceedings, Imprisonment, Show-Cause Notice, Administration Of Justice, Responsibility, High Court Result: Case remanded JUDGMENT This is an application which calls into question the legality and propriety of an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, who, at the relevant time, was incharge as Sessions Judge. 2. The applicant had stood surety for one Ghous Bux before the' Court of Sessions, Nawabshah in the sum of Rs. 5,000 as the latter being an accused person in Sessions Case No. 19/72 had been released on bail in that sum. 3. On the 20th of November 1972 when the case was fixed the accused was absent and counsel who appeared for him also withdrew his power on that date and the learned Judge who was then incharge cancelled the bail of the accused and directed notice to issue to the applicant under section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code and fixed the 4th of January 1973 as the next date. On that date the applicant appeared before the Court and informed the Court that the accused had joined the Pakistan Army and it was on that account that he had not appeared before the Court, the learned Judge passed an order directing that the bail bond be forfeited and issuing a show-cause notice to the surety, that is, the applicant, as to why the amount should not be recovered from him as penalty and adjourned the case to the 27th of March 1973. On this date also neither the accused nor his surety, the applicant was present and the case was again adjourned to the 2nd of May 1973. On this date, however, the accused appeared and prayed that he may be given time to furnish a fresh surety and time was given up to the 5th May 1973. On this date, that is, on the 2nd May 1973, the surety was also present and he undertook in writing that he would continue to be the surety for the accused up to the 5th of May 1973, and the learned Judge gave time up to that date for furnishing surety. On the 5th again both the accused and the surety were absent and the learned Judge forfeited the amount of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492