ABDUL MAJEED KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges the legality of an order passed by the trial court regarding the forfeiture of a surety bond. The petitioner had stood surety for an accused who subsequently failed to appear in court. Consequently, the trial court forfeited the surety bond of Rs. 50,000 and initiated proceedings for the attachment of the petitioner's property. The core legal question was whether the amount of the forfeited surety bond was excessive and whether the court could exercise its discretion to remit a portion of the penalty. The High Court held that the trial court had followed all necessary legal formalities in forfeiting the bond, and thus, the order did not warrant interference on legal grounds. However, exercising its discretion under the relevant procedural law, the Court determined that because the petitioner acted in good faith without personal gain, a lenient approach was appropriate. The Court upheld the forfeiture but reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000, establishing the principle that courts may remit portions of surety penalties when the surety acted in good faith.
- Does a trial court have the discretion to remit a portion of a forfeited surety bond penalty?
- Can a court reduce the amount of a surety bond forfeiture if the surety acted in good faith without personal gain?
- Is a trial court's order forfeiting a surety bond subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction if all legal formalities were followed?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 514(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Abdul Majeed Khan, petitioner stood surety for one Muhammad Iqbal an accused in case F.I.R.
No.18 of 2000 for the offences under sections 420/409/161, P.F.C. Read with section 5(2) of P.C.A., 1947 registered at Police Station, A.C.E., Okara. On 18-2-2004 Muhammad Iqbal accused did not appear.
The trial Court while cancelling the bail of Muhammad Iqbal started proceedings against the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. During the proceedings at the request of the petitioner matter was adjourned to many dates for the production of the accused and finally on 17-7-2004 the Court concerned while forfeiting the surety bound submitted by the petitioner directed him to deposit Rs.50,000 the amount of surety bond as Tawan up till 11-9-2004 failing which the proceedings for attachment of his movable property were ordered to be initiated. Since the petitioner did not pay the Tawan, his standing crops was confiscated by the Authority on 10-11-2004.
' Through the instant criminal revision petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 17-7- 2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither the beneficiary that he got any consideration to stand surety and that he stood surety for the accused only in good faith and on humanitarian ground. It is argued that though the petitioner made many efforts to produce Muhammad Iqbal before the Court but he failed to do so because everything was beyond his control. Submits that in the circumstances of this case the impugned order is harsh in nature and a lenient view be taken.
3. Learned Law Officer present in Court, in the circumstances of this case has no objection if the amount forfeited is reduced.
4. Heard.
The bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court after complying with all the legal formalities had passed the order and on the legal aspect the same needs no interference by Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
' However, as far the quantum of surety to be paid by the petitioner is concerned, under section 514(5), Cr.P.C. To remit any portion of the penalty is within the discretion of the Court. Since there is nothing on the record to show that petitioner stood surety for some personal gain a lenient view in the circumstances of this case would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) to Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be paid within three months. The proceedings of the Revenue Authority i.e. Confiscating the standing crops of the petitioner also stands suspended till then. With this modification in the impugned order the instant criminal revision stands disposed of.