1993 PLP 275 (MLD)

Ehsan Ullah Khan Lilla for Petitioner. Syed Zulfiqar Haider for the State, Date of hearing: 10th June, 1992. The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 30‑4‑1992, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, forfeiting the full surety amount of Rs.20,000.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner stood surety to the extent of Rs.20,000 for one Riaz Ahmad son of Nawaz Muhammad, who was accused in case F.I.R. No.137, dated 7‑5‑1991. On 16‑2‑1992, the said accused did not appear before the trial Court, resultantly his bail bond was cancelled and simultaneously notice was issued to the surety (petitioner) under section 514, Cr.P.C. to show cause why the surety amount should not be confiscated. The first notice issued to the petitioner for appearance on 22‑3‑1992 could not be served upon him, but the second notice for this purpose for 11‑4‑1992, was duly served upon the petitioner and in spite of that the petitioner did not, appear. However, an Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner and undertook to produce him before the Court on 25‑4‑1992. On the said date, another Advocate appeared and sought an adjournment on the ground of marriage of the sister of the surety. The case was then adjourned to 29‑4‑1992. Even the petitioner did not appear before the Court on 29‑4‑1992, and on the aforesaid date, the impugned order was passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no evidence on the record to show that the petitioner was duly served or that any notice was issued to him. Anyhow, hr has conceded the fact that the petitioner stood surety for Riaz Ahmad accused to the extent of Rs.20,

000. In the end, learned counsel contended that the impugned order is contrary to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported as PLD 1963 SC 47, wherein 20% of the surety amount was forfeited, as the petitioner stood surety for the accused without procuring any monetary gain, the amount may be reduced to Rs,4,000,

4. Learned counsel for the State has contended that there is sufficient material on the file to show that notice was duly issued to the petitioner and thereafter when he failed to appear and to show any reasonable and plausible explanation, the surety amount was rightly forfeited in full. Anyhow, he conceded that in view of the case‑law referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to some reduction in the forfeiture of the surety amount.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I find that the finding of the trial Court that notice was duly served upon the petitioner to explain his position with regard to the absence of the accused is based on proper material. However, with respect to the extent of forfeiture of surety amount, following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the A above‑referred case, I reduce the amount from Rs.20,000 to Rs.8,000, as the petitioner stood surety for the said accused on humanitarian ground and has not gained any monetary benefit. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,000 in the trial Court within one month from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall be recovered from him in accordance with law with the above modification of reduction of amount from Rs.20,000 to Rs.8,000, (eight thousand only), this revision petition fails and is dismissed. N.H.Q./G‑64/L Order accordingly.