2009 PLP 1295 (YLR)

This petition has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah by which he has dismissed the Criminal Revision Application of the petitioner, bearing No.13 of 2007, which was preferred against the order of the 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Sakrand, who has forfeited the entire amount of surety furnished by the petitioner against the accused Muhammad Juman in Crime No.86 of 2006 of PS Sakrand. From the record it appears that accused Muhammad Juman has jumped the bail and notice was issued by the Magistrate to the surety. The petitioner/Surety appeared in the Court on 6-8-2007 and made an application, seeking time to produce the accused Muhammad Juman. The Magistrate on the same date dismissed the application of the petitioner/Surety, refusing him to grant time and passed an order, forfeiting the entire surety amount, which order was impugned in Criminal Revision Application No.13 of 2007. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the Criminal Revision inter alia on the ground that since the surety has executed bond for production of the accused and he has failed to produce after the notice, therefore, the order of the Magistrate was justified. We have examined the record and find that on the date when the petitioner/ Surety was appeared and made an application before the learned Magistrate, the Magistrate did not provide him the opportunity to produce the accused. This order of forfeiture has been passed by the learned Magistrate without complying with the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate ought to have granted time to Surety to produce the accused. The order, passed by the Magistrate was harsh and violative of the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C., which provides that an opportunity to show-cause should be given to the surety before forfeiting the amount, which opportunity was not provided and on the day when the application for seeking time was made by the petitioner, the Magistrate had forfeited the surety amount. It is against the language and spirit of section 514, Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah also lost sight of the provisions while passing the order. The learned Addl. Advocate General does not support the impugned order on the grounds observed in this order. We do not find any justifiable ground to affirm the orders of both the Courts below and accordingly set aside the orders, dated 6-8-2007 and 23-7-2008. We are informed that the matter between the parties has been compromised and the accused for whom the petitioner was appearing as surety has been acquitted. We accordingly direct the trial Court to return the surety documents to the petitioner on proper verification and identification. This petition is -allowed in the above terms. H.B.T./A-57/K Petition dismissed.