| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1140 2023 SLD 1140 2023 YLR 684 |
Sindh High Court, Larkana Bench
Criminal Revision Application No. S-72 and M.A. No. 4909 of 2019, decided on 21st April, 2022. Date of hearing: 21st April, 2022.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Revision Application No. S-72 and M.A. No. 4909 of 2019, decided on 21st April, 2022. Date of hearing: 21st April, 2022.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. JAMTI KHATOON MASTOI--Applicant
VS
The STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 514
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 514---Forfeiture of surety bond---Procedure--- Imposition of fine on surety---Scope---Fine was imposed on petitioner who had stood surety for accused, who had absconded---Contention of petitioner was that she had stood surety for accused on humanitarian grounds and she traced out the accused and submitted application before the Trial Court intimating that the accused was confined in District Jail of other Province---On the application of surety, the Trial Court had also issued production order, however, the accused was not produced by the said Jail Authorities---After his release from jail, accused did not appear before the Trial Court, however, the surety appeared before the Trial Court together with accused and filed two separate applications, one by accused for his surrender before the Trial Court and the other by the applicant/ surety seeking time to submit reply to notice under section 514, Cr.P.C.---Applicant/surety submitted her reply---Defence contended that when the applicant produced the accused before the Trial Court, then imposition of 1/4th surety amount upon her was unjustified---Validity---Accused was not only produced by the applicant/surety, but he also himself surrendered through his application and then was taken into custody by the Trial Court---Applicant/ surety stood absolved of her legal liability to produce the said accused before the Trial Court---Impugned order in view of said legal-cum-factual position seemed to be unjustified and could not be maintained---Revision petition was allowed by setting aside impugned order. Ghulam Rasool v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 2652; Mukhtar Ali v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1625; Muhammad Sohail Nawaz Khan v. The State 1999 YLR 2153; Islam Badshah v. The State 2014 MLD 1806 and Janat Wali v. The State 2019 MLD 54 rel. ORDER MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.---Through this revision application, applicant/surety Mst. Jamti Khatoon Mastoi has assailed order dated 12.11.2019, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad (vide Sessions Case No.386/2015 re; State v. Din Muhammad Khoso and others, being outcome of Crime No. 59 of 2014, Police Station Moula-Dad,…
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