2005 PLP 2518 (YLR)

Abdul Majeed Khan, petitioner stood surety for one Muhammad Iqbal an accused in case F.I.R. No.18 of 2000 for the offences under sections 420/409/161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of P.C.A., 1947 registered at Police Station, A.C.E., Okara. On 18-2-2004 Muhammad Iqbal accused did not appear. The trial Court while cancelling the bail of Muhammad Iqbal started proceedings against the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. During the proceedings-at the request of the petitioner matter was adjourned to many dates for the production of the accused and finally on 17-7-2004 the Court concerned while forfeiting the surety bound submitted by the petitioner directed him to deposit Rs.50.000 the amount of surety bond as Tawan up till 11-9-2004 failing which the proceedings for attachment of his movable property were ordered to be initiated. Since the petitioner did not pay the Tawan, his standing crops was confiscated by the Authority on 10-11-2004. Through the instant criminal revision petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 17-7-2004.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither the beneficiary that he got any consideration to stand surety and that he stood surety for the accused only in good faith and on humanitarian ground. It is argued that though the petitioner made many efforts to produce Muhammad Iqbal before the Court but he failed to do so because everything was beyond his control. Submits that in the circumstances of this case the impugned order is harsh in nature and a lenient view be taken.

3. Learned Law Officer present in Court, in the circumstances of this case has no objection if the amount forfeited is reduced.

4. Heard. The bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court after complying with all the legal formalities had passed the order and on the legal aspect the same needs no interference by Court in its revisional jurisdiction. However, as far the quantum of surety to be paid by the petitioner is concerned, under section 514(5), Cr.P.C. to remit any portion of the penalty is within the discretion of the Court. Since there is nothing on the record to show that petitioner stood surety for some personal gain a lenient view in the circumstances of this case would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) to Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be paid within three months. The proceedings of the Revenue Authority i.e. confiscating the standing crops of the petitioner also stands suspended till then. With this modification in the impugned order the instant criminal revision stands disposed of. H.B.T./A-470/L Order accordingly.