Law:

Section:

Keywords: Notice, Magistrate, Production, Disposed Of, Discretion, Order, Forfeiture, Proceedings, Issuance, Procedure, Surety Result: Order accordingly JUDGMENT This revision application has arisan in the following circumstances: One Luqman was proceeded against under section 109, Cr. P. C. The applicant had stood surety for him during the proceedings. Luqman continued attending the Court for sometime, but he remained absent on a number of dates in-between. On 25-1-1973, a notice was issued to the applicant for the production of Luqman. On 8-2-1973, the applicant appeared in the Court and asked for time to produce Luqman. On 5-3-1973, which was the next date, he asked for further time, and 8 days' time was granted by the learned Magistrate. As Luqman could not be traced out, the applicant's bond was forfeited on 13-3-1973, and the amount of the bond was ordered to be recovered from him. The applicant then filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, which came to be dismissed by him surpris ingly on the ground of default. 2. Patently, the order of the learned District Magistrate was wrong as the appeal should have been disposed of on merit anyway. Thereafter he has come an revision. 3. The record shows that Luqman was produced in Court on 11-4-1973 while he was arrested by the police much earlier, to be precise on 16-3-1973. There is also an application on the record that the applicant was trying his best to secure the attendance of Luqman, and he had also asked for the issuance of warrant with Multan address. The…

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