| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2610 2004 SLD 2610 2004 PLD 9 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Revision No. 96 of 1998, decided on 15th September, 2003. DATE of hearing: 8th September, 2003
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J
H. Zahir Shah for Petitioners. Malik Akhtar for the State
Criminal Revision No. 96 of 1998, decided on 15th September, 2003. DATE of hearing: 8th September, 2003
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J
H. Zahir Shah for Petitioners. Malik Akhtar for the State
MIRA KHAN and others
VS
THE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 514,439A
Law: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979)
Section: 3,4
Law: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)
Section: 13
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----- ---Ss. 514 & 439-A---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4--Surety bond, forfeiture of---Petitioners stood sureties of accused who was tried, convicted and sentenced by Trial Court---State being not satisfied with quantum of sentence awarded to accused, had filed revision against order of Trial Court---Accused having not appeared in revisional Court, petitioners/sureties were given notice under S.514, Cr.P.C. and surety bonds furnished by them were forfeited with direction to deposit surety amount in State Treasury as penalty--Validity---Petitioners had stood sureties for-accused according to bail bond, to the effect that accused would appear in the Trial Court during trial proceedings---After conviction and sentence of accused, petitioners/sureties were absolved of their legal obligations from responsibility of surety bond submitted by them to Trial Court in respect of case against the accused and they had not submitted bail bond in revision filed by State against the accused and they had taken no responsibility at any stage that they would produce the accused after his conviction and sentence by Trial Court---Order forfeiting surety bond of petitioners had been passed by Court in total disregard to terms of bail bonds---Liability of sureties should be determined on the terms of bond itself and bond should be strictly construed. Mir Mubarak Ali and another v. State 1997 SCMR 571 and State v. Abdur Rehman PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 90 ref. JUDGMENT Mira Khan son of Aslam Khan and Raees Khan son of Mom Khan, petitioners, both residents of Muhammadzai, District Kohat, have filed instant Criminal Revision No.96 of 1998, challenging the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kohat dated 29-10-1998, forfeiting the surety bonds and directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.10,000 each in the State Treasury, as penalty. 2. Shortly narrated the facts are that the petitioners had stood sureties for one Ismail Khan son of Nawab Khan, an Afghan Refugee, involved in case F.I.R. No. 169 dated 6-5-1992 registered at Police Station Jingle Khel Kohat,…
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