2003 P Cr (PLP)

2. The grievance of petitioner is that he is purchaser of property of surety who filed surety bond in sum of Rs.50,000 in favour of one accused Saifullah, who was facing trial before Judicial Magistrate, Dhadar and subsequently jumped the bail bonds on which the same was forfeited and the property of the surety was ordered to be auctioned for which the petitioner made his bid and was declared successful. The; property was accordingly entered in his name. It is contended that respondent No.1 aggrieved by the said auction preferred revision before Sessions Judge, Sibi, which was allowed vide impugned order whereby the order, dated 17‑8‑2001 was set aside and the property was ordered to be restored to the surety i.e. respondent No.1 as he fulfilled his obligation by producing the accused before the trial Court.

3. The contention raised by the petitioner shows that the proceedings from the very initial stage has been made in clear departure of law Section 514, Cr.P.C. provides the procedure for forfeiture of bonds which reads as under:‑‑ "Procedure on forfeiture of bond.‑‑‑ (1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class; or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such 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. (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the movable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead. (3) Such warrant may be executed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which issued it; and it shall authorize the attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to such person without such limits, when endorsed by the District Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such property is found. (4) If such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered by such attachment and sale, the person so bound shall be liable, by order of the Court which issued the warrant, to imprisonment in the Civil Jail for a term which may‑extend to six months. (5) The Court may at its discretion remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only. (6) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond. (7) When any person who has furnished security under section 107 or section 118 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitute a breach of the conditions of this bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 514B, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section, against his surety, or sureties, and if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved."

4. The counsel for petitioner admitted that only procedure provided under Cr.P.C. for forfeiture of bond is 514, Cr.P.C. according to which only movable property can be attached and sold to recover the forfeited amount of bond while the same does not allow sale of immovable property of surety. Therefore, order for attachment and sale of' immovable property of surety is found to be in violation of section 514, Cr.P.C. Hence, the auction of property made in violation of law does not confer any valid/legal title or right in favour of petitioner. The claim of petitioner is based on an illegal order, which cannot be enforced at all. Besides, the surety is shown to have produced the accused before the trial Court which further absolved the surety from the liability. However, as it has already been found that the property was acquired by the petitioner through an illegal order hence, reversal of same cannot be called in question by means of this petition. The petitioner can only approach the competent Court for refund of the amount deposited by him for purchase of said property. The petition being devoid of any substance calling for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is dismissed in limine.

5. These are our reasons for short order dated 5‑10‑2002 for dismissal of petition. H.B.T./144/Q?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.