1990 PLP 1092 (SCMR)

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 16th December, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, of petitioners' Criminal Revision; whereby the order of forfeiture of their surety bonds in a Criminal case, passed by an Additional Sessions Judge was upheld; with modification by way of reduction of the amount to the extent of 1/5th of the original forfeiture each. The petitioners stood surety for one Shad Muhammad an accused in a case under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, when the latter was ordered to be released on bail. The surety amount was Rs.10,000 each. The said accused absented on several hearings whereupon the petitioners were proceeded against in accordance with law for the forfeiture of the surety bonds submitted by them. During the proceedings,, as is noted in the impugned order, the petitioners admitted their liability and sought two months time for making the payment. As a result of the said proceedings the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeited the bonds to the extent of the full amount represented in each of them. The petitioners' Criminal Revision in the High Court having failed they have now sought leave to appeal. The learned A.O.R. for the petitioners sought adjournment for the reason that the petitioners' counsel is out of station on account of some other engagement. We, however, while refusing the same asked the A.O.R. to argue the matter; the same being such which could be prepared and argued by him. We offered him more time for preparation but he was fully aware of the subject matter. He reiterated the points raised in the petition for leave to appeal and ultimately pressed hard for further reduction of the surety amount; mainly, on the ground that the accused Shad Muhammad having appeared in Court later on, was tried and convicted. In his appearance, as argued, the petitioners must have played some role and performed their duty as surety‑‑they were entitled to further reduction of the amount. The aforenoticed aspect of the matter was presented before the High Court and after taking due note of it the forfeiture was reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.8,

000. It is not a case where some important element in the exercise of discretion was not noticed or the learned Judge was otherwise not conscious of it. Thus, the so called principle in making the assessment for the forfeiture, deduced from the case law, was not ignored by the High Court when disposing of the petitioners' Criminal Revision. That being so, in the circumstances of this case, no justification has been made out for interference with discretionary revisional order of the High Court. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./N‑234/S Petition dismissed.