ABDUL KARIM Versus STATE

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, that he is only pressing the question of the amount forfeited by the learned trial Court and does not press the other legal objections taken by him, to the impugned order in question.

2. In view of the above statement, learned counsel for the applicant submitted, that as held by Supreme Court in case P L D 1963 S C 47 entire amount of the surety bond ought not to have been forfeited, al there is nothing on record to show, that applicant stood surety for monetary consideration. In view of this, learned counsel submitted, that the amount forfeited by the learned trial Court be reduced keeping in view the decision of Honourable Supreme Court cited by him.

3. Learned counsel for the State supports the above contention of the learned counsel for the applicant in view of the decision of Honour able Supreme Court, reported in P L D 1963 S C 47.

4. I have considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates and have gone through the case P L D 1963 S C 47 and keeping in view the observations made by Honourable Supreme Court in this judgment and in the absence of any allegations, that the applicant stood f' surety for monetary consideration. I reduce the amount of forfeiture of two bonds in question, from Rs. 25,000 each, to the sum of Rs. 5,000 only and maintain otherwise the order of forfeiture.

5. The above petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order.

Revision allowed.