MUSHTAQUE AHMED vs THE STATE
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, imposing a penalty on the applicant for standing surety for four accused persons who absconded during trial. The applicant had stood surety for 14 individuals, and upon the absconsion of four, the trial court imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 for each. The core legal question was whether the trial court followed the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before imposing the penalty. The High Court found that the trial court failed to pass a separate, reasoned order for the forfeiture of the surety bond, which is a prerequisite under the law. Furthermore, the court held that the show-cause notice issued to the applicant was defective, lacking the necessary explicit details and material facts required by law. Additionally, the court noted that the accused persons were ultimately acquitted. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, establishing that a formal, reasoned order of forfeiture is mandatory before penalizing a surety.
- Is a separate, reasoned order of forfeiture of a surety bond required before imposing a penalty under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a defective show-cause notice that fails to specify material facts and accusations invalidate proceedings under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---This revision application is directed against the order dated 4-12-2004 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, whereby he imposed penalty against the present applicant for standing surety for four persons. Precisely stated the applicant stood surety for 14 persons, who were accused of Crime No.83 of 1998 Police Station Jhudo, and were being tried in S.C. No.170 of 1998 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, out of 14, four accused persons namely Rasheed, Waris, Arshad Jawaid and Irshad absconded during the trial. Consequently the applicant was saddled with a penalty of Rs.50,000 in respect of each of them.
2. It was mainly contended that no proper order of forfeiture of surety bond was passed prior to issuance of notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. To the surety/ applicant.
3. ' When the matter was taken up on 11-7-2005, learned A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State took the plea that the bond was forefeited before issuance of notice and such order was passed. A report was therefore, called from the trial Court which has been placed on the record.
4. Perusal of the report received from the trial Court reveals that no separate order for forfeiture of surety bond was passed.
5. ' Learned Additional A.-G., Sindh faintheartedly argued that passing of a separate order was not the requirement of law.
6. ' Regrettably I am not convinced by the arguments advanced by learned A.A.-G. To the effect that no order showing the reasons for forfeiture of a surety bond is required. Even otherwise, the perusal of the notice served upon the applicant shows that it was couched in a defective language, as such, did not meet the requirement contemplated under section 514, Cr.P.C. It is well-settled principle of law that a show cause notice must be explicit, and must contain all material facts, details and accusation, and the specific clarifications sought for.
7. ' Last but not the least the accused persons who were facing trial were acquitted after conclusion of the trial as their guilt could not be established which fact could not be lost sight off.
8. ' In the circumstances, the revision application is admitted and allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside.