THE STATE through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. vs Syed IRFAN HAIDER SHAH
This criminal revision petition was filed by the State seeking enhancement of the penalty imposed on the respondents, who acted as sureties, from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 each after the principal accused failed to surrender upon the dismissal of their appeal. The core legal question involved the justification for reducing the penalty of forfeited bail bonds under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court committed no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect in taking a lenient view and imposing a reduced penalty of one-tenth of the bail bond amount. The Court laid down the principle that while forfeiting bail bonds, courts must consider mitigating circumstances, such as whether the sureties acted on humanitarian grounds rather than for financial gain, and the financial position of the sureties.
- Whether the High Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction with a lenient penalty imposed by the trial court on sureties under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without showing any illegality or jurisdictional defect?
- Should courts consider the financial position of sureties and whether they acted on humanitarian grounds when forfeiting bail bonds?
- Can a penalty for forfeiture of bail bonds be reduced to a fraction of the total surety amount based on mitigating circumstances?
- Section 3, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 4, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 8, Illegal Dispossession Act 2005
- Section 544A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---State is aggrieved from the judgment/order dated 3-10-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V Dera Ismail Khan, whereby penalty of Rs,10,000 was imposed on each of the respondents and has challenged the same through this revision petition to be enhanced to the tune of Rs,1,00,000 each.
2. Short facts of the case are that on the complaint of one Haji Rab Nawaz against Sadar-e-Azam, Saeedullah, Noor Ahmad and Gul Muhammad for having committed an offence under sections 3/4/8 of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, they were convicted under section 3 of the Act ibid and sentenced to six months R.I. And to pay fine of Rs,10,000 each as compensation to the complainant in terms of section 544A, Cr.P.C. Vide judgment dated 3-11-2006 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V Dera Ismail Khan. The convict challenged the said judgment in an Appeal bearing No,77 of 2006 in this Court, while the complainant preferred a revision petition thereagainst for enhancement of the sentences awarded to the convicts. During the pendency of both these matters in this Court, the trial Court suspended the operation of the judgment and admitted the convicts to bail. However, both the appeal and the revision petition were dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 30-4-2007 and it was observed that the learned trial Judge who had suspended the operation of the conviction order after the institution of the appeal shall get the order implemented and shall also proceed against the sureties of the convicts-appellants under section 514, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V Dera Ismail Khan vide order dated 3-10-2007 forfeited the bail bond amount of Rs,1,00,000 upto 1/10th thereof and each of the surety was ordered to pay Rs,10,000 in lump sum on 23-10-2007, which is now under challenge in the revision petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/petitioner mainly argued that the impugned order is against law and facts and that there was no justification for the learned Court below to have penalized each of the respondents 1/10th of bail bond amount of Rs,1,00,000 as the respondents had stood sureties for monetary gain and not on humanitarian.
4. The learned counsel representing the respondents supported the impugned order on the grounds, inter alia, that the respondents had stood sureties of the accused on humanitarian grounds and not for any financial benefits and that the impugned order is based on correct premises.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in the light of record. The learned counsel representing the State has failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order so as to warrant interference therein by this Court through its revisional jurisdiction. The record revealed that the respondents had stood sureties for the accused on humanitarian grounds and not for any financial benefit. There was no blood relation of the sureties with the convict-appellants. Furthermore, while forfeiting the bail bonds, Courts have also to take into considered the financial position of the sureties.
6. The learned Court below has, therefore, rightly taken a lenient view in the matter while passing the impugned order in view of the dictum laid down in the case of Amanullah v. The State reported in 1997 PCr.LJ 1927.
6A. Consequently, I find no merit in registration of this petition which is accordingly dis- missed.