Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 950 1990 SLD 950 1990 SCMR 1129
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 166-R of 1989, decision dated: 4-02-1990.
S. USMAN ALI SHAH AND ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JJ
Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. M. Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD AKBAR and anothers

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 514---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Accused had not absconded but failed to appear in Court as he was not released by the Army being on duty in national interest---Sureties could not, therefore, be held liable for absence of accused and bonds executed by them were not liable to forfeiture---Petition was accordingly converted into appeal and was accepted. ORDER ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioners stood surety for Muhammad Yaqoob accused who was facing trial under section 302 P.P.C. read with section 34 of P.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. Muhammad Yaqoob was admitted to interim bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount. Muhammad Yaqoob was not present in the Court on 29-8-1988 when on the request of his counsel, the case was adjourned to 30-8-1988. On this date (30-8-1988) his bail was cancelled and his bail bond was forfeited. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners as to why they should not pay the amount of surety bond. The petitioners produced a letter before the trial Court issued by one Major Mansoor lqbal certifying that the accused had been posted in Sindh. The learned trial Judge by order dated 14-3-1989 imposed penalty on both the petitioners to the extent of Rs.25,000 each i.e., 1/4th of the amount of surety bond. The petitioners went in revision before the Lahore High Court against the said order. The learned Judge in Chambers reduced the amount of penalty from Rs.25,000 to Rs.8,000. 2. The petitioners being aggrieved have challenged the order of the High Court in this petition. Leave to appeal was granted. Notice was issued to the Advocate-General. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned High Court while reducing the amount of penalty has observed in paras 5 and 6 of the judgment as hereunder:-- "Learned counsel does not challenge the impugned order on merits. He concedes that it does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever but says that since the petitioners have not contributed or connived at the disappearance of the accused, therefore, they deserve to be dealt with leniently. In this regard…
🔒
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