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 Miscellaneous No. 339 of 1979, decided on 11th July 1979.
---S. 514‑Security, forfeiture of‑Penalty amount, reduction in‑Peti tioner having no relationship with accused and standing surety on humanitarian ground, accused being friendless and a resident of Tribal Area‑Amount of penalty reduced to Rs. 2,000 from Rs. 4,900, in circumstances.‑‑[Surety].
Dildar and another v. Die State P L D 1f063 S C 41 ref.
Muhammad Saleem Khan for Petitioner.
Jalulud Din Khdid for the State.
Date of tearing : 11th July 1979
The petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs. 7,000 for one Ghulam Rasool son of Hussain Shah, Mehmand by cast, resident of Mohallah Kisser‑khawani Bazar, Tehsil and District Peshawar in a case registered against the aforesaid Ghulam Rasul for offences under section 320/31st of the Pakistan Penal Code on the 21st July 1977, Ghulam Rasul is absconding since 17th December 1977, and after a notice under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued to the petitioner and observance of other formalities, the learned trial Court directed the forfeiture of the entire amount of Rs. 7,000.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jhelum, who rejected the case but reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 4,000 only. Hence this revision.
2. As far as the merits are concerned, the concurrent finding of fact is against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the matter any further than praying for the reduction in the penalty amount. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner more than the surety amount bas been incurred by Muhammad Farooq petitioner in efforts to trace Ghulam Rasul accused. Ghulam Rasul accused is .from the Tribal Area and the best efforts of the petitioner to apprehend him have failed. The petitioner stood surety for Ghulam Rasul only for not reason that one of his fellow traders in fruit from Peshawar made a result to him in this regard, and he, in all innocence, obliged him on humanitarian ground as Ghulanm Rasul was not stated to know anyone in Jhelum. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Dildar and another Tire State (P L D 1963 S C 47).
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the reduction in the penalty amount.
3. I have considered all the aspects of the case. This is not that the petitioner has no relationship with accused nor it denied that Ghulam Rasul accused belongs to tribal territory. It is a of common knowledge that people from Tribal Areas are not much law-abiding, and if they choose to abscond it is not easy to catch hold them.
In this view of the matter, I consider it expedient in the interest of justice to reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 2,000. The revi sion petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer