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. 559 of 1985, heard on 18th March, 1986.
‑‑Ss. 439 & 514‑‑Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act (XXIX of 1977), S.7‑‑Trial Court forfeiting bail bond and imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000 on surety on failure of accused to appear in Court‑‑Appellate Court reducing penalty to Rs.2,500 Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, appeared before Court and case was decided‑‑Held, balance has to be kept between undue severity and undue leniency in such cases‑‑Surety having acted through mere benevolence and not for any financial gain, penalty imposed on surety was excessive in circumstances‑‑Penalty reduced to Rs.500 in circumstances.
Khan Muhammad Virk for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th March, 1986.
Muhammad Aslam petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs.5,000 for one Karamat who was accused in case F.I.R. No. 181, dated 6‑6‑1984 registered under section 7 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 at P.S. Sargodha Cantt. The accused did not appear on 29‑8‑1984 and remained absent on four dates of hearings. Consequently, the bond was forfeited and a penalty of Rs.5,000 was imposed on the surety vide order, dated 29‑12‑1984. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate who reduced the penalty from Rs.5,000 to Rs.2,500. Feeling dissatisfied with these orders the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
2. No body has appeared on behalf of the State. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has challenged the impugned orders only with regard to the quantum of penalty. He states that the petitioner is not related to the accused and has not obtained any, financial benefit by standing surety for him. it is further submitted that the accused appeared in Court on 30‑9‑1984 and the case against him has since been decided.
3. I have gone through the record and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is well‑settled that in such cases a balance has to be kept between undue severity and undue leniency. As the surety appears to I have acted through mere benevolence and not for any financial gain the penalty imposed on him is excessive and the same is reduced to Rs.500. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.
H.A.K. Revision partly accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer