Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No. 193 of 1986, decided on 13th December, 1986
‑‑‑Ss. 439 & 514‑‑Reduction of penalty‑‑Petitioner submitting surety bond for appearance of accused in Court‑‑Accused absenting himself‑ Petitioner ordered to pay surety amount‑‑Petitioner not obtaining any financial gain for becoming surety nor conniving at absence of accused‑ Penalty of surety bond reduced in circumstances.
Dildar's case P L D 1963 SC 47 ref.
Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa for Petitioner.
Tasaddaq Hussain Jilani Asst. A.‑G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 13th December, 1986.
Riaz Ahmad, petitioner, herein, stood as surety in the sum of Rs.10,000 for appearance of Arif son of Sadiq resident of Thatthal Rambira, Tehsil Nankana, Distict Sheikhupura, accused in case titled, State v. Arif, under section 379/411, P.P.C. of Police Station Shahkot, in the Court of Assistant Commissioner Chichawatni. The said accused absented from the Court on 15‑7‑1984 whereupon the petitioner‑surety was issued a notice to show‑cause against forfeiture of his bond. He did not appear despite service as a result whereof the surety bond was confiscated and he was directed to pay the surety amount as undertaken by him, vide order dated 22‑8‑1984. Against this order an appeal was filed before the District Magistrate, Sahiwal, who dismissed the same on 8‑11‑1986, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the impugned orders on merits. He has only requested for reducing the amount ordered to be recovered as penalty from the petitioner. In this connection, he has relied on Dildar's case P L D 1963 S C 47 where their Lordships of the Supreme Court reduced the amount ordered to be recovered from the surety to 1/5th of the original surety bond executed by him.
3. I have gone through the relevant record as well as the case‑law cited at the Bar and also heard learned Assistant Advocate‑General. The Court below have not held that the petitioner (surety) had obtained financial gains for becoming surety or connived at procuring the absence of the accused in the instant case. In the circumstances, respectfully following the Supreme Court's above‑quoted authority, I feel inclined to reduce the amount of penalty imposed on the petitioner from Rs.10,000' to Rs.2,500. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
S. A./R‑1/L Penalty reduced.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer