MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus THE STATE

This is a revision petition by Muhammad Khan, petitioner, against the judgment of District Magistrate, Gujranwala dated 29‑9‑1988, dismissing his appeal. Earlier a First Class Magistrate of Gujranwala, by his order, dated 16‑5‑1968, had ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000 as penalty, being the full value of the bond furnished by him.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 31‑7‑1967, Muhammad Iqbal, accused was allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala in respect of a murder case State v. Abdul Majid and others pending before him. On 1‑8‑1967, Muhammad Khan, petitioner, stood surety for the said Muhammad Iqbal, accused, vide bail bond Exh . P.A. executed by him. It appears that the accused absented himself from the Sessions Court on 16-2‑1968, 23‑2‑1968 and 28‑2‑1968. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail of the accused and sent a copy of the order to the learned District Magistrate, Gujranwala, for taking proceedings under sections 512 and 514, Cr.P.C. The case was then marked to the First Class Magistrate, who, by his order, dated 16‑8‑1968. held the petitioner to be liable on the bond and ordered him to pay Rs.20 000 being the full value of the bond. The petitioner appealed to the District Magistrate. Gujranwala, against the said order, which was dismissed.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have also perused the record. The heading of the bail bond Exh.P.A. shows that it was furnished, before the Duty Magistrate. It directed the surety to produce the accused before the said Court or any other Court to which the case was transferred. The case actually was before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, when the accused failed to appear. In the circumstances, under section 514, Cr.P.C. it was necessary for the learned Sessions Judge himself to have taken proceedings for the forfeiture of the bond, he being the Court before whom the accused was then bound to appear. The proceedings taken by the Magistrate are in violation of the mandatory, language of section 514, Cr.P.C. which states that when a bond is for appearance before a Court, it must be proved to the satisfaction of such Court that the bond has been forfeited. If any authority is required for this view. Rabindra Chandra Chanda's case A 1 R 1963 Cal. 252 may be referred. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders required to be set aside.

4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the orders of the Magistrate 1 st Class, Gujranwala, dated 16‑5‑1968 and that of the District Magistrate, dated 28‑9‑1968 are set aside. In case the penalty has been paid by the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him.

S.A Petition accepted.