1968 P Cr (PLP)

Abid Ali Buttar for Appellant. M. M. Bhatti for the State. A case was registered with Police Station Sadar Bahawalpur, against Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner regarding abduction of Mst. Sughran Bibi alias Mst. Arshan. Muhammad Yaqoob petitioner applied to the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, for bail before arrest. .He was allowed interim bail on the 8th of July 1967, and a notice to the State was issued for the 22nd of July 1967. On that day the petitioner appeared and the State was represented by the Public Prosecutor. On the request of the State, the petitioner was asked to produce the abductee and the case was fixed for the 25th of July 1967. The petitioner produced Mst. Arshan who was sent to the B. V. Hospital for medical examination with regard to her age. . The second order on the same date is to the effect that the X-ray result was not available and the petitioner was directed to produce the abductee on the next day and was asked to furnish bond in .,the sum of Fs. 2,

000. On the 26th of July 1967, the petitioner absented himself from the Court proceedings. Nor did he produce the abductee. The learned Sessions Judge ordered the forfeiture of his machalka and surety bonds. Non-bailable warrants of arrest against the peti tioner were also ordered to be issued for the 2nd of August 1967. The petitioner, Muhammad Yaqub, has come in revision against this order. Bashir Ahmad surety has similarly come in revision which is No. 1097/1967, This order will dispose of both the revision petitions.

2. The grounds urged against the impugned order, amongst others, are that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before ordering the forfeiture of the bonds.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has been heard and he has not been able to support the impugned order by reason of the failure of the learned Sessions Judge to issue the show-cause notice under section 514(1) of the Cr. P. C. which is to the following effect:- "Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid." The requirements of law, therefore, are that the Court has first to satisfy itself that the bond has been forfeited. It has then to record the grounds for such proof and it is after these two pre requisites are satisfied that the Court may either call upon the person to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has conceded that the provisions of section 514(1); Cr. P. C. have not been complied with and the order dated the 26th of July 1967, forfeiting the personal and surety bonds cannot be defended. The two petitions for revision are, therefore, accepted. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated the 26th of July 1967, ordering the forfeiture of the personal and surety bond is set aside. The learned Sessions Judge may now proceed with the matter according to law.