1993 P Cr (PLP)

Taufiq A. Qureshi for Petitioner. Ghazanfar Ijaz Ch. for the State. Date of hearing: 11th October, 1992. This criminal revision arises out of impugned orders dated 3-4-1984 and 23-4-1984 passed by Ch. Anwar Ali, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura.

2. Muhammad Younus (since dead) and Noor Ahmad stood sureties in the sum of Rs.20,000 each for two accused namely Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Yousaf. On 3-4-1984 only Muhammad Yousaf accused appeared and Muhammad Abbas accused could not appear. Non-babble warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued against the accused and the learned trial Court also ordered issuance of notice to the two sureties i.e. petitioners for 23-4-1984. On 23-4-1984 Muhammad Yousaf accused appeared but Muhammad Abbas accused did not appear and also the warrants of arrest issued against him were not received back. Thereafter, fresh non-bailable warrants were issued against Muhammad Abbas accused. The two petitioners did not appear and vide order dated 23-4-1984 the trial Court had directed the S.H.O. Chuharkahna to attach movable property of the two petitioners and submit a report on 5-5-1984. The Exh.B and Exh.C are the impugned orders. Exh.C. is the order dated 23-4-1984 by which the trial Court had issued show-cause notice to both the petitioners by one order. The impugned order Annexure `C' dated 23-4-1984 is also the order by which S.H.O. Chuharkahna was directed to seize the movable property of the petitioners.

3. It has been contended .by learned counsel for the petitioners that procedure laid down under the law was not adopted by the Court. The petitioners were issued one notice for their appearance and due to their non -appearance even though served another order was passed, dated 23-4-1984 directing the S.H.O. Chuharkahna to seize the movable property of the petitioners.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the State and also perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the learned trial Court could proceed against the sureties i.e. petitioners ex parte yet it was not absolved of issuing show-cause notice to forfeit and recover the surety amount which has not been done. According to section 514(1), Cr.P.C. when an accused (released on bail bond executed by his surety), absents, the trial Court must immediately forfeit the surety bond and then call upon the surety to show cause against the recovery of the surety amount. The learned Court below in this case has forfeited the surety bond and also issued a joint show-cause notice and also thereafter directed the S.H.O., Chuharkahna to seize the movable property of the petitioners which is violative of provision of law. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable. Consequently the impugned orders dated 3-4-1984 and 23-4-1984 are set aside and the case is remanded to the Court concerned for proceeding against the petitioners/sureties afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner Noor Ahmad is present who is directed to appear before the learned Session Judge, Sheikhupura on 28-10-1992 to be dealt with in accordance with law. AA./M-629/K Order accordingly.