P L D 1956 Peshawar 65 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J. C.‑This order will disposed of revision .petitions No. 65 of 1955, by Umar Daraz, son of Sanam Khan, No. 66. of 1955 by Mirbaz Khan, son of Muhammad Jan, and No. 67 of 1955, by Sardar Khan, son of Umar Daraz Khan, all residents of Kot Adil, in the District of Bannu. The case against them was that having been separately challaned under sections 107/118 Criminal P. C., Umar Daraz and Sardar Khan on 22nd July 1953, and Mir Baz Khan on 28th July 1953, executed three separate bonds, binding them selves not to commit the breach of the peace, or do any act that might probably occasion the breach of the peace, for a period of one year. The amount of bond was Rs. 2,000 in the cases of Umar Daraz and Sardar Khan, and Rs. 1,000 in the case of Mir Baz Khan. On 21st May 1954, a report was made in Saddar Bannu Police Station, by Muhammad Nawaz Khan, that on that very day at about 6‑15 a.m. he had been beaten by the three persons mentioned above, and also thrown on the ground, and divested of certain amount. A case under section 325 P. P. C. was registered against the three petitioners, and they were in due course challaned to Court. On 20th September 1954, the case under section 325 P. P. C. was compromised with the permission of the Court, and all the three accused acquitted. Subsequently proceedings under section 514 Criminal P. C. were taken against them by the Police, and it was required of the Court that the three accused persons having committed the breach of the peace by committing an offence under section 325 P. P. C. had forfeited their bonds, and, therefore, they should be penalized for that. Said Afzal Khan, Magistrate 1st Class Bannu, ordered Sardar Khan and Umar Daraz to pay Rs. 200 each, and Mir Baz to pay Rs. 100, holding that they had committed the offence under section 325 P. P. C., and thus had caused the breach of the peace, and in consequence thereof forfeited the bonds to the extent mentioned above. The three appeals against the above three orders were dismissed by the District Magistrate Bannu. In all the three cases, the sureties were also proceeded against, and the learned trial Court had ordered them as well to pay a certain amount of money, but those orders were set aside by the learned District Magistrate. Under section 514 Criminal P. C. if the Court orders a certain person to pay a penalty, it has got, to be satisfied that the bond taken from that person had been forfeited by him. Composition of an offence under section 345 (6) Crimi nal P. C. has the effect of the acquittal of the accused, and, therefore, prima facie the acquitted person cannot be said to have forfeited the bond. It is, however, open to the prose cution to produce evidence in proceedings under section 514 Criminal P. C. proving that the relevant person has in fact committed the breach of the peace and forfeited the bond. The Court would then proceed to penalize the person in spite of the composition of the offence. His acquittal under section 345 Criminal P. C. would not stand in the way. In‑ the three cases before me the prosecution did not consider it fit to produce any evidence that the persons concerned had committed any offence, which had .the effect of the commission of the breach of the peace, and consequently the order of the learned trial Magistrate in forfeiting the bonds even to the extent mentioned in his orders is not justified bylaw. This position has been conceded, and very rightly, by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The result is that I accept all the three revision petitions, set aside the orders of the two Courts below, and order that the amount forfeited, if paid, shall be refunded to the three petitioners. A. H. Petitions accepted.