Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 368 of 1976, heard on 18th May 1976.

‑‑ S. 514‑Security‑bond, forfeiture of‑Court forfeiting security bond straightaway on accused failing to attend Court on one of dates of hearing‑Impugned order however, passed without notice to surety and surety on coming to know, producing accused in Court‑Order set aside, in circumstances.‑[Security bond, forfeiture of].

Rana Abdur Rahim Khan for Petitioner.

Naeem Malik for the State.

Date of hearing : 18th May 1976.

This is a revision by Muhammad Ramzan against the order of District Magistrate, Sahiwal, dated 11‑8‑1975.

2. The facts, briefly, are that Muhammad Ramzan stood surety for one Muhammad Amin who was accused of offence under section 379. P. P. C. Muhammad Amin/did not appear on one of the hearing. The present petitioner was, therefore, required to produce him. He failed to produce him. Mehr Sultan Mahmood, learned trial Magistrate, Dipalpur, therefore, forfeited the surety bond to the tune of Ra. 5,000 by his order dated 28‑11‑1974. The petitioner was subsequently able to find out Muhammad Amin, accused and be produced him before the Court. He also filed an appeal before the learned District Magistrate, Sahiwal. He rejected the same. But in view of the fact that the accused had been produced he reduced the amount from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,500.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not at fault. Ere had not received the notice and on coming to know that he was required to produce Muhammad Amin, accused, he, in fact, produced him in Court. He submitted that in the circumstances the order of forfeiture should be set aside.

4. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The revision is, therefore, accepted and the order of forfeiture is set aside.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.