Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN versus STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CCPC) Section 514 Bail, forfeiture of District Criminal Court consisting of two members but after a single order passed by a Sessions Judge, passed without any jurisdiction. Placed, confiscated District Criminal Court consisting of two members to deal with the case. [Confiscation of Jurisdiction of Bail Bonds]

1981 P Cr. L J 198

[Supreme Court AJ&K]

Before Sardar Muhammad Sharif Khan, Aug. C J

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN-Petitioner

Versus

THE STATE Respondent

Criminal Revision No. 136 of 1980. decided on 11thOctober, 1980.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

---S. 514--Bail bond, forfeiture of-District Criminal Court consisting of two members to deal with matter but order forfeiting bail bond, having passed by Sessions Judge alone-Order, held, passed without jurisdiction and set aside, in circumstance.-[Forfeiture of bail bond --Jurisdiction].

Manzoor-ul-Nassan for Petitioner.

Rafique Mahmood Khan, Addl. A.-G. for the State.

Date of institution: 10th August, 1980.

ORDER

The learned counsel were heard. In a case under section 9 of the offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, now pending in the District Criminal Court Muzaffarabad, Muhammad Sadiq accused was granted bail by that Court vide its order dated 31-5-1980. During the proceedings before the trial Court the accused absented himself from appearing before the trial. Court. He was released on bail furnished by Muhammad Zaman, the petitioner. On default committed by the accused in not attending the Court as undertaken by the surety, the amount of bail bond was forfeited and a show cause notice was issued to him to appear before the trial Court to show as to why amount of bail forfeited should not be realized from him. In answer to the show-cause notice objections were filed by the surety which were heard by the Sessions Judge alone and not by the trial Court and thus the matter was disposed of by the Sessions Judge singly by his order dated 12-7-1980 by which his objections were overruled and the surety was directed to make payment of the penalty imposed by order dated 12-7-1980. Sessions Judge alone in the instant case did not compose the Court so as to deal with the matter as required by section 514, Cr. P. C. It was District Criminal Court consisting of two members to deal with the matte but it failed to do so and the Sessions Judge without jurisdiction passed the impugned order.

That being so, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is hereby set aside.

Revision allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
immigration advocates from FR Peshawar lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.