2004 PLP 1925 (MLD)

By means of this single order, I propose to dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos.13 of 2004 and 14 of 2004 as common question is involve in both the petitions.

2. Sher Nawaz, Ali Baz and Zahoorullah, petitioners have filed instant criminal revisions under section 439, Cr.P.C. Challenging the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bannu dated 11-2-2004 whereby penalty of Rs.10,000 each was imposed on the petitioners under section 514, Cr.P.C.

3. Shortly narrated the facts are that accused Haseenullah was arrested in criminal cases registered at Police Station, Bannu. The petitioners furnished surety bond in a sum of Rupees one lac each and consequently, he was released on bail. During the trial of the case, accused Haseenullah absconded and failed to appear before the trial Court. The petitioners were served with the requisite show-cause notice as to why the amount of bail bond should not be recovered from them. They submitted their reply and expressed their inability to produce the accused before Court. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the surety amount was reduced from Rupees one lac to Rupees ten thousands each. Subsequently, accused was produced by the petitioners in Court on 20-10-2003. 3-A. Mr. Gauhar Zamam Khan Kundi, Advocate for the petitioners maintained that once the petitioners had produced the accused before the Court in compliance with its orders, their liability stands discharged, therefore, taking further action against them by learned Sessions Judge was not warranted by law.

5. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudary learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State opposed the petitions and contended that the learned Court below has already taken a lenient view in the matter and thus the impugned order is not open to exception.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu had given time to the petitioners to produce the accused. The order of learned Sessions Judge allowing time to sureties for production of the accused tacitly implied the suspension of the order of the forfeiture of the surety bond, because a person cannot be held liable at one time for both producing the accused and paying the amount of security. So far as petitioners were made liable for the production of the accused and were granted time for that purpose, they no longer remained liable to pay the surety amount, until the time allowed to them was over and they failed to produce the accused within that time. The sequence of these facts shows that the petitioners had acted in compliance with the orders of the Court which allowed them time for the production of the accused, therefore, they were not liable to pay the surety amount after they had actually produced the accused in the Court. If any authority is needed on the point, reference can be made to Ghulam Qadir Siyal v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 554 FSC).

6. For what has gone above, both these petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 11-2-2004 of learned Sessions Judge, Bannu is set aside and the petitioners are relieved of the liability to pay the amount of Rs.10,000 each. H.B.T./230/P Petition allowed.