ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE and 3 others
This criminal revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi, whereby the petitioner, as a surety for an accused in case F.I.R. No. 123 of 2005 under sections 337-A(i)(ii)/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was penalized in the sum of Rs. 50,000 upon the non-appearance of the accused and the subsequent cancellation of his bail. The core legal question concerns the legality and severity of the penalty imposed on the surety without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and whether the penalty warrants interference. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order imposing the full surety amount was somewhat harsh under the circumstances, particularly where the surety sought time to respond to the show-cause notice. Consequently, the court partially allowed the revision petition by reducing the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000. The key principle laid down is that while a surety remains liable for the non-appearance of an accused, courts may exercise discretion to mitigate the penalty amount in appropriate circumstances where the full penalty appears harsh.
- Whether the penalty imposed on a surety for non-appearance of an accused can be reduced by the High Court?
- Does the failure to grant adequate opportunity to submit a reply to a show-cause notice vitiate a surety penalty order?
- Whether a surety is liable for the full bond amount when an accused fails to appear in court?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.-~ ' The petitioner stood surety for accused Muhammad Sharif in the sum of Rs,50,000 in case relating to F.I.R. No, 123 of 2005, under sections 337-A(i)(ii)/34, P.P.C., Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari. On 14-4-2005 the said accused could not appear in the trial Court, therefore, his bail was cancelled and the petitioner was burdened to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 vide order dated 12-5-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi, now impugned in the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused Muhammad Sharif was alleged to have committed an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., that he remained attending the trial Court on a number of dates; that no adequate opportunity was provided to the petitioner to submit his reply to the show-cause notice issued by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi as he was asked for the first time to submit written reply to the show-cause notice on 9-5-2005 on which date case was adjourned to 12-5-2005. On the said date the petitioner was present before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi and sought adjournment to submit written reply but this request was turned down and impugned order had been passed immediately. This being so, the petitioner has been condemned unheard; that the petitioner stood surety for the said accused on humanitarian ground and had not derived any monetory gain in this regard; that the petitioner has been sincerely endeavouring hard to produce the said accused but the law enforcing agencies had not cooperated with him in this regard.
3. Learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the complainant, though did not controvert the above submissions yet it is submitted by them that this may be a case of reducing amount of penalty but not a case of complete waiver thereof.
4. After having considered the above submissions, I am of the view that the impugned order is a bit harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this revision petition is partially allowed by reducing the amount of penalty from Rs,50,000 to Rs,25,000 to be paid by the petitioner within one month from today failing which law shall take its own course.