MUHAMMAD ISLAM KHAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner filed a criminal revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge imposing a penalty of Rs.20,000 upon him as surety for an accused whose bail was cancelled upon abscondence. The core legal question was whether a penalty could be lawfully imposed upon a surety without affording him an opportunity of being heard or serving a show-cause notice. The Lahore High Court held that since the record revealed the petitioner was never served with a show-cause notice and was condemned unheard, the impugned order was legally unsustainable. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after providing the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and be heard. The key principle laid down is that no penalty or adverse order can be passed against a surety without due service of notice and compliance with the principles of natural justice.
- Whether a penalty can be imposed upon a surety without serving a show-cause notice?
- Is an ex parte order imposing a penalty on a surety sustainable when the surety is condemned unheard?
- What is the appropriate course of action for an appellate or revisional court when an order is passed against a surety in violation of natural justice?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.-In case F.I.R. No.245 of 2000, registered with Police Station Khairpur Tamewali, under sections 302/324/148/149 of the P.P.C., Syed Auon Abbas had filed a bail before arrest petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur in which interim bail was granted to him subject to furnishing of surety. The petitioner had stood surety for the aforesaid accused for a sum of Rs.50,000. On 15-8-2003, Syed Auon Abbas, absented from appearance from the aforesaid Court on the ground of ailment and his request for exemption was also turned down on the same day by the learned Court and the bail was cancelled and bond was forfeited and notice was issued to the surety to show-cause as to why the whole amount of bail bond may not be imposed as penalty upon the petitioners. As the petitioner had not appeared in the Court on 23-9-2003, therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge, imposed penalty of Rs.20,000 upon the petitioner. The aforesaid order is being impugned through this criminal revision.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was never served with any notice of show cause. The petitioner had not appeared and order was passed ex parte which is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Appearing on Court's call has been heard who has stated that from the record, it does not appear that the petitioner was served with any notice of show cause.
4. In these circumstances, when the petitioner has been condemned unheard, the impugned order dated 23-9-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is set aside and the case is remanded to the aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge, for decision afresh, after affording an opportunity Of filing of reply to the show-cause notice and hearing to the petitioner/surety. The petitioner/surety shall appear before aforesaid Court on 6-6-2006.