MUHAMMAD MAZHAR IQBAL Versus State
This criminal revision petition was filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000 on the petitioner under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for failure to comply with the terms of a surety bond after the accused absconded. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in imposing an excessive penalty on a surety who acted without monetary benefit and made genuine efforts to trace the accused, subsequently locating him in jail in connection with another case. The High Court partly accepted the revision petition and reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the imposition of penalties on sureties must consider the specific facts of each case, striking a balance between undue leniency and excessive severity, and that a lenient view should be taken where the surety acted on humanitarian grounds, derived no personal gain, and made genuine efforts to track the accused.
- Whether the penalty imposed on a surety under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be reduced if the surety made genuine efforts to trace the absconding accused?
- What factors must a court consider when regulating the imposition of fines or penalties on a defaulting surety?
- Whether standing surety on humanitarian grounds without monetary or personal gain warrants taking a lenient view in proceedings under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, J.---- This criminal revision assails order dated 4-10-2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni, whereby a penalty of Rs.75000/- was imposed on the Petitioner on account of his failure to comply with the terms of the surety bond.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- for Mukhtar alias Mukhi in case FIR No.126/2011 registered at Police Station Ghazi Abad, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, for offences under Sections 302/397/393, P.P.C. During the trial the said Mukhtar alias Mukhi jumped over his bail and absconded. Consequently his bail was cancelled and bail bond was forfeited. Thereupon the learned trial Court initiated proceedings under Section 514, Cr.P.C. against the Petitioner. The Petitioner started searching Mukhtar alias Mukhi accused and learnt that he was arrested in another case bearing FIR No.406/2015 dated 29-12-2015 registered at Police Station Dera Raheem, District Sahiwal, for offences under Sections 380/411/457, P.P.C. The Petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the learned trial Court through his reply to the show cause notice which he filed on 24-5-2016. The learned trial Court rejected the said reply and imposed penalty of Rs.75000/- on him, Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner stood surety for the said Mukhtar alias Mukhi on humanitarian grounds and not for any monetary or personal gain. He tried his best to locate him but did not succeed. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned order dated 4-10-2016 be set aside or at least a lenient view of the default of the Petitioner be taken and the penalty imposed on him by the learned trial Court be reduced.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer vehemently opposed this petition and supported the impugned order.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. It would be seen that the learned trial Court issued show-cause notice to the Petitioner on 7-9-2015. The Petitioner started efforts to trace Mukhtar alias Mukhi and finally learnt that he was confined in jail in connection with FIR No. 406/2015, supra. He brought this fact to the notice of the learned trial Court while submitting his reply to the show cause notice on 24-5-2016. In the instant case it has not been shown that the Petitioner stood surety for any monetary or personal gain. There is also no evidence that the Petitioner was careless and did not make any effort to produce the accused before the Court.
7. In "Ali Sher v. The State" (2011 SCMR 929), the august Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for imposition of fine on the sureties:
"---it would be seen that imposition of fine upon sureties are to be regulated keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. Where the surety has made genuine efforts to produce the accused before the trial Court but could only do so after some time then a lenient view was to be taken. However, where he has failed to totality then the Courts have to be strict insofar as, imposition of fine is concerned. In the case of Dildar and others v. The State (Supra), it has been held inter alia that the efforts made by the surety to produce the accused should be inquired in to as they are not the custodians of the accused and in the absence of proof to the contrary, it may generally be assumed that they do not gain by standing surety. Therefore, in dealing with the cases of sureties who are in default, a balance has to be held between undue leniency, which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a larger number of cases, and on the other hand, undue severity, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation".
8. Keeping in view the aforementioned guidelines, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would meet the ends of justice if the penalty is reduced to Rs.50,000/-.
9. For the above reasons, this revision petition is partially accepted. The impugned order dated 04-10-2016 is set aside and penalty imposed on the Petitioner by the learned trial Court is reduced from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
KMZ/M-148/L Order accordingly.