2007 P Cr (PLP)

IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.

This revision petition calls in question the legality of order, dated 15-3-2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan who, while confiscating the bail bonds, directed Ali Akbar, petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000 in Court within a period of one month.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of instant revision petition are, that petitioner verified the bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 executed by Irshad and Farman Ali sureties in the case F.I.R. No.309; dated 7-3-1999 under Articles 3,/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1.979 registered at Police Station "B" Division, Mardan against accused Gul Shad. During trial of the case, proceedings under section 512, Cr.P.C. were initiated against the accused due to his absence and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. were started against the sureties Irshad and Farman Ali. The sureties were summoned and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was served upon them. Both the sureties were released subsequently from the liability for the reasons, enumerated in the impugned order, whereas, while confiscating the bail bonds of the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000 within a period of one month as stated and mentioned above.

3. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner,. Mr. Khalid Rehman, Advocate strenuously contended that the petitioner is the verifier of the bail bonds and his position is no more than a witness to a deed/bend and therefore, any liability, whatsoever by the promising parties cannot be enforced against. the petitioner for which the sureties Farman (Farman Ali) and Irshad would be responsible; concluding the arguments, the learned counsel reiterated that petitioner stood verifier to the sureties out of sheer benevolence and humanity and has never stood verifier as professional nor has he received anything in consideration of his verification. The learned counsel relied on the following authorities in the support of his contentions:-- Nadir Khan v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 802, Mumtaz Ahmed v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1079 and Abdul Hameed v. The State and another 2004 PCr.LJ 216.

4. Mr. Muhammad Saeed Khan, A.A.-G., on the other hand, refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment maintaining that impugned order has been recorded for valid and cogent reason and the same is not open to legitimate exception.

5. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard at some length in the light of the material on the file.

6. The law contemplates a personal bond on behalf of the "surety" for the appearance of "accused" in a Court, which would be seized of the criminal case against him. It is surety and not the verifier of his person nor the verifier of his means to pay the amount of the bond who is liable to pay the forfeited amount of bond. He may be liable for any offence for wrong verification of the capacity of the surety furnishing bonds under section 514, Cr. P. C. but such verifier of the bond does not seem to be covered by that section so as to be made liable to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of bond, which he verified.

7. The person verifying, may be liable for prosecution if it turns out that the person he so verified was not that particular person,; perhaps it may be treated as a contract in some sense and may perhaps be enforceable in a Civil Court but these are questions. with which I am not concerned in this petition.

8. The question is as to whether, apart from these implications, the verification can be treated as a bond enforceable under section 514, Cr.P.C. It seems to me that as the said verification is not provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not a bond executed under the Code and hence does not attract the application of section 514, Cr.P.C.

9. In view of what has gone abase, it follows .that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan has exceeded his authority under the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. and recorded the impugned order in a mechanical manner without application of independent judicial mind which cannot be allowed to remain in the field. The revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. This order would not operate to absolve the petitioner from any other offence which he may have, committed by wrong verification of the bonds executed by the sureties aforesaid. The learned Additional Sessions Judge may, if he deems appropriate, initiate proceedings against the petitioner for any offence which the petitioner might have committed under any law for the time being in force. H.B.T./158/P Revision accepted.