MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order, dated 20-2-1989, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, whereby he directed that the petitioner shall pay full amount of surety of Rs.20,000 as penalty amount within 15 days failing which the writ of attachment be issued against him.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that accused Gul Zaman Bhatti and Shabbir Ahmad in respect of whom petitioner stood surety were absent from the trial Court on 8-2-1989. A notice was issued, therefore, to the petitioner but the same it is urged was never served on him. I have seen the notice on which the S.H.O. probably reported in Sindhi that further time be given for effecting service. There is no other notice.

3. Consequently, it appears that very service relied on by the trial Court, on the petitioner is in doubt. However, this matter may be sorted out conclusively only by the trial Court. Moreover, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that if opportunity was given to the petitioner, he would have endeavoured to produce the accused and lessened his burden.

4. The contentions have merit. I, therefore, allow the petition, set aside the impugned order and send back this case to the learned 1st Additional; Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, who shall enquire into the matter once again and allow an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter pass any order in I accordance with law.

5. The petitioner shall appear before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge on 5-6-1990. The learned counsel undertakes that he shall inform the petitioner of the said date.

N.H.Q./785/FSC Order accordingly.