Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 908 of 1976, decided on 26th January 1977.
‑‑ S. 514 read with S. 439‑Surety bond, forfeiture of‑Petitioner surety not related to accused and taking all possible measures to produce accused but failing due to circumstances beyond his control Penalty of Rs. 3,000, held, excessive and reduced to Rs. 500 in circumstances.
Dildar and another v. The State P L D 1963 S C 47 and Sardar Khan v. Crown P L D 1952 Lah. 645 rel.
Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner.
Raja Muhammad Khalid for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th January 1977.
Talib Hussain has filed this revision petition against the judgment of the District Magistrate, Gujrat dated 20‑7‑1976, whereby he reduced the penalty imposed on the petitioner by the Magistrate 1st Class, Mandi Bahauddin, from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 3,000.
2. In this case Talib Hussain stood surety for Muhammad Zaman accused in a case under section 411, P. P. C., who failed to produce the accused before the trial Court on the date of hearing. This Court admitted this petition on 11‑10‑1976 and notice was issued to the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not related to the accused in any manner and the penalty imposed upon him was excessive as he had taken all possible measures to produce the accused but he failed to do so in the circumstances beyond his control. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Dildar and another v. The State (P L D 1963 S C 47) and Sardar Khan v. Crown (P L D 1952 Lah. 645). It was held in both these cases that a surety should not be penalized to an extent that in future it should become impossible for the members of the society to come forward as to stand sureties which, in fact, is an assistance to the State as well as to the Court for the production of an accused involved in a particular case.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have) perused the authorities cited above and find that the contention of the learned counsel is not without force. In this view of the matter I reduce the penalty of the petitioner from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 500 only. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer