1999 PLP 2344 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 19th November 1998. This criminal revision under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question order, dated 5-8-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat whereby he forfeited the bond furnished by the petitioner as surety of accused, Rahim Bux Hingorja, son of Illahi Bux Hingorja, facing trial in a case against him under section 17 (3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered as Crime No.99 of 1990 with Police Station, Gambat. The said Rahim Bux, accused, was allowed bail by the Court below and the petitioner, Abdul Qadir, stood surety for him in the sum of Rs.50,000 whereby he undertook to produce the accused in the Court on each and every date of hearing till the decision of the case.

2. The said accused absented from appearance with effect from 21-1-1996 against whom non-bailable warrants were issued on.30-1-1996. On 19th of November, 1997 the petitioner/surety did not appear, and therefore, notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was issued which was also not attended to by him despite service. The learned trial Court, therefore, forfeited the bond and ordered the recovery of Rs.50,000 through writ of attachment.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned order of the learned trial Court, dated 5-8-1998 has come up to this Court in the present revision.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner stood surety and furnished bond on humanitarian grounds alone and further submitted that the petitioner being illiterate person was not propertly guided by the process-server that he has to appear and request the Court to be allowed to continue the search of the accused and produced him before the Court. He further contended that the petitioner bona fide and in good faith believed that accused will himself appear and get the condonation of absence from the Court. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the order of the learned trial Court may be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show how the impugned order suffers from any illegality or material irregularity. He very candidly submitted that he is unable to the find any fault in the impugned order on any legal plane.

5. I have gone through the impugned order, which is quite detailed and has been passed with jurisdiction. All the measures were taken by the learned trial Court which were enjoined by law. The petitioner despite service of notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. neither cared to appear himself nor took any steps to procure the attendance of the accused. He was bound in law and under the conditions of the bond to ensure the attendance of the accused on each and every date of hearing of the case which obligation he failed to discharge. The discretion in the matter has been properly and justly exercised. The petitioner by standing surety of an accused involved in a heinous offence should have known implications of standing surety in such a case. If such matters ace not dealt with in accordance with law and rigour of law is not applied the trials before the Courts will never conclude and no offender would be brought to book.

6. Apart altogether from the position that the impugned order is well; on factual plane, the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity or material irregularity. No interference is, therefore, called for in the impugned order which is maintained and accordingly this revision petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./40/FSC Petition dismissed.