Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 647 of 1984, heard on 6th November,1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 514 & 439‑‑Federal Shariat Court suspending sentence of two appellants subject to their furnishing bail bonds before trial Court‑ Sureties/petitioners furnishing bail bonds before trial Court‑‑‑Appellants failing to appear at time of hearing of appeal before Shariat Court Trial court proceeding against sureties under S. 514, Cr.P.C.‑‑Revision‑‑ Proceedings under S. 514, Cr.P.C., held, should have been taken by Federal Shariat Court and not by trial Court‑‑Order of trial Court set aside in circumstances.

Anil Kumar Chatterjee's case P L D 1954 Dacca 175 and Abdul Ghani's case P L D 1970 Kar. 46. ref.

Mirza Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioners.

Ch. Mansha for A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 6th November, 1985.

This is a revision petition filed by Muhammad Amin and three others, petitioners, against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad, dated 10‑11‑1984, forfeiting the security bonds furnished by the petitioners and ordering, them to pay Rupees Five Thousand (Rs.5,000) each, being half the value of the bonds furnished by them.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7‑4‑1984 Mst. Shamshad Begum and Pervaiz Akhtar were convicted and sentenced under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, VII of 1979, by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad. Both the said accused preferred an appeal before the Federal Shariat Court, which appeal was admitted and the two convicts were released on bail in the sum of Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs.10,000) each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Muhammad Amin and Mst. Perveen Akhtar stood sureties on behalf of Pervaiz Akhtar, accused, in .the sum of Rupees Ten Thousand each and Asif Ali and Nabi Bakhsh, petitioners, stood sureties on behalf of Mst. Shamshad Begum in the same amounts. The appeal was fixed for 25‑6‑1984, on which date the two accused failed to appear, whereupon their bail bonds were forfeited and the sureties were issued notices to produce the accused and to show cause why they should not be directed to pay up the full amounts of the bonds. On 22‑7‑1984, the petitioners in their capacity as sureties produced the two accused before the Federal Shariat Court, when they were taken into custody to serve out the remaining portion of their sentences. The trial Court, however, proceeded against the sureties under section 514, Cr.P.C. and directed them to pay. Rupees Five Thousand (Rs.5,000) each, as penalty on the bond. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The bonds were furnished by the petitioners to secure the attendance of the two accused before the Federal Shariat Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, which was to hear the appeal. The two accused failed to appear before the said appellate Court. In these circumstances, the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. should have been taken by the Federal Shariat Court and not by the trial Court. If any authority is required for this view, Anil Kumar Chatterjee's case A PLD 1954 Dacca 175 and Abdul Ghani's case P L D 1970 Kar. 46 may, be referred. In view of the above, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad, dated 10‑11‑1984 is without jurisdiction and is null and void.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad, dated 10‑11‑1984 is set aside.

H.A.K. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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