GHOUS MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition concerns the reduction of a penalty imposed on a surety. The petitioner, having stood surety for an accused who subsequently became a fugitive from law, sought a reduction in the surety amount, arguing that the undertaking was provided on humanitarian grounds without expectation of profit or gain. The core legal question was whether the court could exercise its discretion to reduce the penalty amount in light of the petitioner's financial circumstances and the nature of the surety bond. The Court, upon reviewing the record and noting that the petitioner acted without personal gain, held that a reduction was appropriate. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to reduce the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000, subject to the petitioner depositing the reduced amount within two months. The judgment reaffirms the principle that courts possess the discretion to mitigate surety penalties when the surety has acted in good faith on humanitarian grounds rather than for commercial benefit.
- Can a court reduce the amount of a surety penalty based on the financial position of the surety?
- Is the absence of profit or gain a relevant factor in determining the reduction of a surety penalty?
- Does a court have the discretion to modify a penalty imposed on a surety when the accused has absconded?
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition on merits but prays that the amount of surety be reduced on account of financial position of the petitioner and that he did not, stand surety for any profit or gain or had any relation with the accused. He stood surety on humanitarian ground. Relies on Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47).
2. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Has been heard. He argued that since criminal revision is not pressed on merits, 'reduction of penalty lay within discretion of Court.
3. Heard, Record perused.
4. I have considered the contention of learned counsel with reference to record obtaining of the file and find that the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly elected not to press this petition as accused a fugitive from law and he stood surety on humanitarian ground, without any profit or gain. In this view of the matter, it B is a case for reduction of amount of penalty.
5. In view of the above, the amount of surety is reduced from Rs,50,000 to Rs,25,000 on the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall deposit Rs,25,000 with the Court, within period of two months, from today.
6. Disposed of with above modification. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.