HAZARA Versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJANPUR Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa , Sh. Muhammad Aahim

This revision petition, is directed against the order, dated 18‑8‑1987, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, forfeiting two surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each of the petitioner and directing him to pay the entire amount till 9‑9‑1987, failing which warrants of attachment and sale of his movable property shall be issued and sent to the Collector for execution.

2. Mir Jan and Muhammad Murad and 3 others were accused in murder case which was registered at Police Station Dajal, vide F.I.R. No. 57, dated 31‑3‑1984 Mir Jan and Muhammad Murad were, however, allowed bail by learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur vide order dated 10‑3‑1986 in the sum of Rs.50,000 each in the like amount. In pursuance of this order, Hazara petitioner herein stood surety for both the aforesaid accused and submitted two bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each for appearance of the accused in Court or in default to deposit the said amount in the Government Treasury as penalty.

3. The trial in the case started before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur. Despite repeated notices, both Mir Jan and Muhammad Murad did not appear, whereupon notice to the surety. Hazara petitioner was given. On his request, time was granted to him to produce the accused persons but he expressed his inability to locate and to produce them in Court despite his best efforts, whereupon learned trial Court after observing necessary formalities confiscated the surety bonds and vide impugned order directed him to deposit the amount to surety bonds in full by 9‑9‑1987 in the Government Treasury failing which warrants of attachment and sale of his movable property would issue. Feeling aggrieved, by this, the petitioner has moved the instant petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length as well as for the State and also perused the record appended with the petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner conceded and rightly so that the impugned order does not suffer from any, legal defect whatsoever. The only grievance voiced by him is that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is extremely harsh particularly because it has been neither alleged nor found that the petitioner ha obtained any pecuniary gain by standing as surety of accused or that he had connived at their disappearance. Reference to Dildar' case P L D 1963 SC 47 has been made in this regard. Learned Stat counsel has not successfully controverted the objection. In the circumstances respectfully following Dildar's case, I would reduce the penalty from Rs.50,000 each to Rs.10,000 each i.e. the petitioner shall deposit Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) in all in the Government Treasury within two months from the date of this order, failing which the District Magistrate concerned shall recover it in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of.

S.A./H‑49/L Penalty reduced.