1988 P Cr (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Surety bond, confiscation of‑‑Surety appearing in Court‑ Nothing on record showing that surety abetted accused in absconsion or had derived any monetary gain for becoming his surety‑‑Penalty imposed on surety reduced in circumstances. Ch. Abdur Rahman Cheema for Petitioner. Muhammad Sher petitioner stood surety for the appearance of Waryam accused in Court who was facing trial in a case under sections 307, 458, 380, PPC pending in the Court of a Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad. Waryam accused absented from the Court, therefore, his (petitioner's) surety bond was forfeited and he was issued a show‑cause notice as to why surety amount be not recovered from him. It appears that the petitioner despite service of the notice failed to appear in the Court whereupon ex parte proceedings were taken against him and an order directing recovery of surety amount and for issuing warrant of attachment was passed on 29‑4‑1986. The petitioner came to know about passing of this order some time in January, 1987 and after obtaining certified copy of the same preferred appeal against it in the Court of Sessions Judge, Faisalabad who vide order dated 12‑5‑87 dismissed it observing that it was time‑barred. Feeling aggrieved thereby he filed instant revision petition.

2. This revision petition was admitted on 10‑8‑1987 on the ground that the impugned order confiscating the surety bond of the petitioner passed by the trial Magistrate was appealable before the District Magistrate under section 515, Cr.P.C. and not before Sessions Judge, therefore, impugned order dated 12‑5‑1987 of Sessions Judge suffered from jurisdiction.

3. Today learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has conceded that as a result of amendment made in section 515, Cr.P.C. in the year 1972 such an appeal was competent before the Sessions Judge and the impugned order was with jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, learned counsel has abandoned his objection as to legality of the impugned order dated 12‑5‑1987 and submits that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is harsh at any rate which must be lessened particularly because accused Waryam had been arrested since June, 1986 and was facing trial at the time of dismissal of his appeal as in apparent from report of the Deputy Supdt. District Jail, Faisalabad, dated 21‑3‑1987 which is on the record.

3. In view of the fact that Waryam accused has since appeared in the trial Court and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner abetted the deceased in abconsion or had derived any monetary gain for becoming his surety, therefore, I feel inclined to reduce the penalty imposed on the petitioner from Rs.10,000 to Rs.2,

500. With this modification, the revision is disposed of. M.Y.H./M‑449/L Bail granted.