1975 P Cr (PLP)

Usman Ghani Rashid, Asstt. A:-G., (Sind) for the State. Date of hearing : 19th March 1974. This revision application has arisan in the following circumstances:‑‑ One Luqman was proceeded against under section 109, Cr. P. C. The applicant had stood surety for him during the proceedings. Luqman continued attending the Court for sometime, but he remained absent on a number of dates in‑between. On 25‑1‑1973, a notice was issued to the applicant for the production of Luqman. On 8‑2‑1973, the applicant appeared in the Court and asked for time to produce Luqman. On 5‑3‑1973, which was the next date, he asked for further time, and 8 days' time was granted by the learned Magistrate. As Luqman could not be traced out, the applicant's bond was forfeited on 13‑3‑1973, and the amount of the bond was ordered to be recovered from him. The applicant then filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, which came to be dismissed by him surpris ingly on the ground of default.

2. Patently, the order of the learned District Magistrate was wrong as the appeal should have been disposed of on merit anyway. Thereafter he has come an revision.

3. The record shows that Luqman was produced in Court on 11‑4‑1973 while he was arrested by the police much earlier, to be precise on 16‑3‑1973. There is also an application on the record that the applicant was trying his best to secure the attendance of Luqman, and he had also asked for the issuance of warrant with Multan address. The application also shows that he had been to the house of Luqman and had contacted his family members. Actually, the arrest of Luqman came to be effected within three days of the forfeiture.

4. The forfeiture of the bond would not be open to any challenge in the circumstances of the case as it was the bounden duty of the applicant to keep control over the movements of Luqman and see to it that he was attending the Court on all the dates of hearing. However, in view of the circumstance disclosed, it was open to the learned District Magistrate to exercise his discretion while hearing the appeal, which he dismissed under a misapprehension, in default. To my mind, it is just a dereliction of duty on the part of the applicant and the time in between the notice and the forfeiture was not long. As observed earlier, he was making frantic efforts to fulfil his obligations. In all probability, and as asserted the arrest of Luqman was through his efforts, a proposition which has not been rebutted by any counter affidavit.

5. In this view of the matter, I will reduce the amount of the bond forfeited from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 50 only. The applicant will deposit this amount of Rs. 50 in the Court of the Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Nawabshah within a month from today. Order accordingly.