1988 PLP r (PCRLJ)

S.M.K. Lodhi for Petitioner. Irshad Ahmad for the State. The facts leading to this revision briefly are that a case under section 307/34, P.P.C. i.e. FIR No. 57/61 of 1988 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang, against Sohail Afghan alias Guddu and another on 21‑2‑1988. Sohail Afghan filed application for pre‑arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang. He was allowed interim pre‑arrest bail in the sum of Rs.15,000 with one surety in the like amount. Soofi Muhammad Ashraf petitioner executed the surety bond for the appearance of the accused before the' learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of the hearing of the bail application. Sohail Afghan did not appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27‑2‑1988 at the time of the hearing of the bail application although he was directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be present before him at the time of the hearing of the petition, so the learned Additional Sessions Judge called upon the surety petitioner to show cause why the amount of the bond executed by him should not be levied as required by law. The surety petitioner with counsel appeared before him on 1‑3‑1988. After hearing him, the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs.5,000 only as a penalty hence this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge imposing penalty of Rs.5,000 was illegal inasmuch as no enquiry was conducted by the learned Additional Sessions to know the reasons for the absence of the accused; that no show‑cause notice was given to the petitioner before imposing penalty and that no formal order for the forfeiture of bail bond was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Reliance has been placed on cases reported as PLD 1967 Kar. 826, 1968 PCr.LJ 782, 1968 PCr.LJ 775 and 1969 PCr.LJ 407. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this revision. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I find that the submissions made by him are factually incorrect. The operative part of para No.2 of the order dated 1‑3‑1988 may be reproduced advantageously:‑ "The surety was called upon to explain as to absence of the accused on 27‑2‑1988 and further as to why the amounts of the bond executed and submitted by him should not be levied as required by law. He totally failed to put forward any explanation whatsoever. It is, therefore, evident that the absence of the accused on the date fixed was without any sufficient cause, or justification. The bond submitted by the surety has already been forfeited to the State on 27‑2‑1988. It may be noted that in the application of the accused for bail before arrest in case FIR No.57/61, dated 21‑2‑1988 under section 307/34, P.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, Jhang, the surety had submitted bond in the sum of Rs.15,000 and had thereby undertaken to produce the accused in the Court on 27‑2‑1988 and in case of his failure so to do, to pay the amount of the bond to the State as penalty. While keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on the point, the surety is fined Rs.5,000. He is ordered to pay the said amount within 7 days hereof under the Rules failing which the A.C. Jhang is directed under section 516, Cr.P.C. to levy the amount as required by law." It is thus very much obvious that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has fully complied with the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C: He has rather shown leniency in the matter of imposing penalty. The order passed by him does not suffer from any illegality. The learner. Additional Sessions Judge has not flouted the relevant provisions of law. He has passed the order in accordance with the case law laid down by the superior Courts. The case law relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to the petitioner in any manner. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed. The copy of the order may immediately be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang as well as to the learned Assistant Commissioner, Jhang for compliance of the order dated 1‑3‑1988. H.B.T./M‑744/L Revision dismissed.