1996 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Muhammad Suleman Awan for Petitioner. Asif Nazir Awan for the State. Date of hearing: 29th March, 1995. The petitioner stood surety for Bashir Ahmad, an accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.30/93 under section 6, Gambling Act at Police Station Allah Abad, District Kasur, but on the failure of the said accused to appear on the date fixed for hearing, the learned trial Court cancelled his bail, forfeited surety bonds and directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000 but of the surety amount of Rs.30,000 as penalty, vide order, dated 20-3-1994 and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the District Magistrate, Kasur, vide order, dated 18-9-1994. Hence, the present criminal revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the State were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. The learned counsel for the State submitted that no illegality or material irregularity can be pointed out in the impugned order, therefore, no interference therewith is called for under the revisional jurisdiction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the petitioner was condemned unheard as he was not served with show-cause notice as required under the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. and in this respect pointed out that the report of the said notice having been effected on the petitioner, is riot on the record, hence, argued that the entire proceedings, culminating in the forfeiture of the bail bonds, provided by the petitioner in favour of the accused Bashir Ahmed, were liable to be set aside. Further submitted that the accused had put in appearance before the Court and was attending the proceedings of the case in question, soon after the passing of the impugned order, dated 20-3-1994 by the learned trial Court, but before the dismissal of the appeal preferred against it vide order, dated 18-9-1994.

4. The Court has given its anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, a poor illiterate, had stood surety for the accused Bashir Ahmed, out of benevolence and humanitarian consideration and not for any monetary or personal gain. Further taking into consideration, that although it is recorded in the impugned order, dated 20-3-1994, passed by the learned lower Court to the effect that the petitioner has neither submitted the explanation nor produced the accused before the Court yet, there is nothing on the record to prove that the petitioner has been served with the show-cause notice issued under section 514, Cr.P.C. Further taking into consideration, that, in any case, the accused Bashir Ahmed had since put in appearance before the learned trial Court i.e. before the dismissal of the appeal vide order, dated 18-9-1994, as stated above, the Court is further constrained to observe that under all the circumstances highlighted above, the sustaining of the impugned orders, in respect of the forfeiture of the bail bonds submitted by the petitioner in favour of the accused Bashir Ahmed in question, shall be oppressive, hence, unjust; that consequently, the impugned orders to that effect merit to be set aside.

5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the present criminal revision petitions is hereby allowed and the impugned orders, dated 20-3-1994 and 18-9-1994, passed by the learned lower Courts, are hereby set aside. Disposed of. N.H.Q./S-45/L Revision petition allowed.