1992 PLP 74 (MLD)

3. The trial Court while acceding to the prayer of the petitioner forfeited the amount of surety to the extent of Rs.20,000 and directed him to deposit the aforesaid amount in Government Treasury within 30 days from the date of the order of the trial Court. Accordingly the petitioner deposited the said amount on December 22, 1984.

4. Mbhammad Altaf accused who could not be traced out during all this period, again turned up before the trial Court on July 27, 1986. Thereafter he remained present before the trial Court in his challan case.

5. An application was submitted by the petitioner before the trial Court praying therein that the amount of Rs.20,000 may be refunded to him as the accused for whom he had stood surety, has again appeared before the Court. The learned Sessions Judge passed an order on the application in the following terms: ‑‑

6. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated November 20, 1984 whereby he was called upon to explain as to why the amount of surety mentioned in the bond should not be forfeited from him, the order dated December 30, 1984, whereby he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000 in the Government Treasury within 30 days and the order dated May 29, 1988 whereby his request was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate‑General. I have also gone through the record of the case minutely with their help.

8. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no knowledge that he ever stood surety for Muhammad Altaf in the case registered against him. Furthermore, the orders were passed against him without providing him an opportunity of proving his case that he never stood surety for the said accused. Therefore, the amount which was got deposited from him in the Government Treasury under undue pressure, may be refunded to him. In support of his arguments he relied on cases reported as 1975 P Cr. L J 58 and 1374.

9. In case reported as 1975 P Cr. L J 58, the surety bond was forfeited due to the failure of the applicant (therein) to produce the accused on the relevant date fixed by the Court. A lenient view was adopted on the ground that time allowed in between the notice and forfeiture of the bond was short. It was also observed that the surety made frantic efforts in order to fulfil his obligations and ultimately the accused was arrested within three days of forfeiture of the bond through the efforts of the surety. In these circumstances, the amount of surety forfeited was reduced to Rs.50 from Rs.2,000.

10. In the later case, the facts were that one Mahmood stood surety for the appearance of the accused (therein)which was pending trial before the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad (Pakistan). The accused failed to attend the Court on the relevant date resulting thereby that a notice was issued to the surety to show cause as to why the amount of surety should not be forfeited from him. The surety filed his objections but the trial Court did not feel satisfied with his explanation and, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000 being equivalent to the amount of surety. This order was assailed in appeal before the A.D.M. who rejected the same. A revision petition was brought before the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad who recommended the case to the High Court on the grounds that the accused had sent a medical certificate justifying his absence on the relevant date. The Court found that this medical certificate was not taken into consideration either by the trial Court or by the A.D.M. while rejecting the appeal. It was further observed that in the light of the medical certificate produced by the accused, it was duty of the trial Court to enquire as to whether absence of the accused was genuine or not. In the light of the medical certificate it was observed that presence of the accused on the relevant date, was beyond his control. Therefore, the recommendations sent by the Sessions Judge were accepted and the order of forfeiture was quashed. Both these cases are quite distinguishable on facts of the case in hand.

11. In the present case, as held earlier, the surety (petitioner herein) was served with a notice to show cause as to why the amount of surety should not be forfeited from him as the accused Muhammad Altaf failed to appear before the Court on the relevant date for whom he stood surety without any reasonable excuse when the evidence of the prosecution was present. In response to this notice he had admitted that he stood surety for the accused Muhammad Altaf and that despite his best efforts he could not be able to know his whereabouts. He prayed that a lenient view may be taken while forfeiting the bond.

12. Keeping in view the overall circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000 on the petitioner. It was finally pointed out by the Additional Advocate-General that the petitioner has taken inconsistent and contradictory stands in the present petition. The petitioner has taken the stand that he never stood surety for Muhammad Altaf accused. This stand cannot be accepted due to his own written version wherein he had admitted that he stood surety for Muhammad Altaf accused. Therefore, there was no necessity to conduct an inquiry. The points agitated by the petitioner are, therefore, repelled.

13. Moreover, the order was passed in 1984 and the instant petition was preferred in 1988. No reasonable explanation has been furnished as to why the petitioner has not challenged the impugned orders of the trial Court within a reasonable time. Therefore, finding no force, in this revision petition, it stands dismissed. N.H.Q./484/H.C.A Petition dismissed.