1991 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ayub for the State. Date of hearing: 18th March, 1991. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-5-1990 whereby the learned. Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali forfeited the surety bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 submitted by the petitioner and ordered him to pay Rs.15,000 as penalty.

2. The relevant facts which gave rise to the present revision petition are that one Shaukat Ali an accused in a Hudood case (wrongly described as a murder case in the revision petition) was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali in the sum of Rs.20,

000. Ilam Din petitioner stood surety for him and submitted a bond in the sum of Rs.20,

000. The accused was released on bail. Subsequently on 31-7-1989 the said accused absented himself as a result of which his bail bond was cancelled and bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him. A notice was also issued to the surety i.e. the petitioner. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 12-4-1990 the petitioner was directed to show cause in writing as to why the amount of surety bond should not be recovered from him. On the next date of hearing he failed to submit any written explanation as a result of which final notice was given to him requiring him to explain as to why the surety bond should not be forfeited. He again failed to submit his written reply and asked for adjournment to enable him to produce the accused in Court. The case was adjourned to 16-5-1990 on which date neither the accused was produced nor written reply was filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge thereupon vide the impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000 on the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved he has come up in revision.

3. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was too harsh and requested that the same be substantially reduced. He maintained that in the present case the petitioner had no financial interest in the matter nor did the accused abscond with his connivance and therefore, a lenient view should have been taken. It was further submitted that the petitioner had stood surety for the accused purely on humanitarian grounds otherwise the accused was not much known to him. Learned counsel for the State defended the impugned order and maintained that undue leniency in such cases would lead to abuse of the process.

5. It is evident from the record of the Court below that a number of opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to produce the accused in Court and submit his written reply but he did nothing. In this Court also more than six months were given to him to trace out and produce the accused in Court but he could not. Being a surety he therefore, had rendered himself liable to penalty.

6. In sub-para. (b) of para.4 of the revision petition the petitioner has admitted that Shaukat Ali accused was his relative. In these circumstances it could not be said that the petitioner had stood surety merely on humanitarian grounds. He had blood relation with the accused and therefore, had some interest in the matter. The learned trial Court however, had not made any effort to ascertain if the petitioner had received any pecuniary gain or the accused had absconded due to his connivance which, in order to determine the quantum of punishment was not only desirable but necessary it is laid down in Dildar and another v. The State P L D 1973 SC 47 that balance should be kept between undue leniency and undue severity. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case I hold that reduction in penalty from Rs.15,000 to Rs.7,000 would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. SA./I-260/L???? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Order accordingly.