MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs STATE and others
This criminal revision petition under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, imposing a penalty of Rs. 100,000/- on the petitioner under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after the accused for whom the petitioner stood surety absconded during the trial in case FIR No. 111/2012 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the surety was liable to pay the penalty upon the non-production of the accused and whether the penalty warranted reduction. The court held that the petitioner failed to ensure the presence of the accused despite numerous opportunities and adjournments, rendering the revision petition meritless. However, considering the poor financial position of the petitioner, the court exercised leniency and reduced the penalty amount by half. The key principle laid down is that while a surety is strictly bound to produce the accused, courts may exercise discretion to reduce forfeiture penalties based on the financial hardship of the surety.
- Whether a surety is liable to pay a penalty under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when the accused absconds during trial?
- Can the appellate or revisional court reduce the amount of penalty imposed on a surety on the ground of financial hardship?
- What is the extent of liability of a surety who fails to ensure the appearance of an accused on each date of hearing?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, petitioner Muhammad Ashraf has challenged the vires of order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal whereby the petitioner was imposed to pay the penalty of Rs, 100,000/- in proceedings under Section 514, Cr.P.C. against him in case FIR No, 111/2012, in inspect of offences under Sections 302 and 34, PPC registered at Police Station, Dera Raheem District Sahiwal.
2. Precisely, facts necessary for the disposal of instant petition are that the petitioner stood surety for accused Javed Hussain in the aforementioned case to the tune of Rs, 100,000/- before the learned trial Court but during trial the accused concealed himself and did not appear before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court initiated proceedings against the surety/petitioner wherein, after obtaining reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner/surety, was burdened to pay an amount of Rs, 100,000/- vide impugned order dated 20.09.2017. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood surety for the aforementioned accused on humanitarian ground, who has concealed himself and is not traceable despite making hectic efforts by the petitioner and his non-production before the learned trial Court was neither deliberate nor intentional. Further submits that the petitioner had not gained any monitory or material benefit from the accused and that if the Court is not convinced with the arguments advanced supra, the amount of penalty may be reduced as the petitioner is a poor-man.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State states that the petitioner was bound to produce the accused on each and every date of hearing during the trial but he failed to do meet with his undertaking made by him at the submission of bail bonds, therefore, he deserves no leniency.
5. The petitioner stood surety for accused Javed Hussain whereupon he was released on bail but during trial, the said accused concealed himself. Learned trial Court initiated proceedings under Section 514, Cr.P.C. against the surety/petitioner, which remained pending for more than 1'/2 year.
The petitioner/surety obtained almost three dozen adjournments but he remained failed to trace the whereabouts of the accused. He was bound to make sure the presence of the accused in the Court on each and every date of hearing but failed to do so despite obtaining long period of 1/2 year. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for reduction of penalty stating that the petitioner has feeble financial position and he is not in a position to pay such a huge amount.
Learned Law Officer remained unable to rebut the said argument with regard to the financial position of the petitioner.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the revision petition in hand is without any merit, the same stands dismissed.
However, by taking the lenient view, the amount of penalty is reduced to one half of the penalty imposed upon by the learned trial Court i,e, Rs, 50,000/-.