ZAFAR ALI and anothers vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 6-4-1993 upholding the forfeiture of surety bonds. The petitioners had stood sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 each for an accused facing trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who absconded after being convicted and sentenced to death. The core legal question concerned whether further reduction of the forfeited surety amount was warranted. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that proper discretion had been exercised by both the trial court and the High Court in reducing the penalty from the original amount, and that no error of law called for interference. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts will not interfere with the concurrent exercise of discretion regarding the mitigation of surety bond penalties unless an error of law is demonstrated.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the concurrent reduction of a forfeited surety amount by lower courts?
- Can a surety seek further reduction of a forfeited bond amount after the trial court and High Court have already exercised discretion to remit a portion of it?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 6-4-1993.
2. The facts to be noted are that the petitioners stood sureties in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each for the accused, who was facing trial under section 302, P.P.C.. The accused did not appear before the Court on 11-3-1991. The judgment was pronounced and sentence to death was awarded to the accused. The accused absconded thereafter. According to the learned counsel, the accused has.
Now surrendered.
3. Notices were served upon the petitioners. The trial Court vide order dated 28-6-1992 remitted Rs,25,000 and the petitioners were directed to make the payment of Rs,75,000 each out of Rs,1,00,000. The High Court further reduced the amount of surety to Rs,60,000 each. The learned counsel for the petitioners wants further reduction of the amount already forfeited. The two Courts have already reduced the amount. There is no error of law which calls for interference by this Court.
Proper discretion has been exercised by the High Court.
' This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the .
Cited by 1 case
- ZEESHAN KAZMI Versus THE STATE 1997 PLD 267