MUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus STATE

This revision petition by Muhammad Shafi, surety under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Muzaffargarh, dated 30-6-1987 whereby he forfeited the bail bond furnished by the applicant in a case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979).

2. Zulfiqar alias Zulli alongwith other accused was challaned in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge III in a case under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979). The petitioner stood surety of Zulfiqar accused in the sum of Rs.20,000. The hearing of the case commenced on 22-12-1986 when the aforesaid accused did not enter appearance. The learned trial Court adjourned the case on a number of occasions, issued the non-bailable warrants for the production of the accused as well as issued notice to the petitioner for showing cause as to why the bail bond furnished by the petitioner, be not forfeited. It was on 30-6-1987 when the learned trial Court forfeited the whole bail bond furnished by the petitioner by holding that despite the notices the petitioner has not entered appearance to contest the forfeiture proceedings. Having become aware of this order, the petitioner tried to know about the whereabouts of the accused and came to know he was confined in District Jail, Multan in a case under section 10/16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood), Ordinance (VII of 1979) and in another case under Arms Ordinance. Resultantly the petitioner submitted application to the learned Court that order dated 30-6-1987 be set aside and the accused be directed-to be produced by the relevant authorities.

3. On behalf of the petitioner, it was canvassed that Zulfiqar accused was confined in jail in criminal cases noted above and his default in appearance before the Court was occasioned on account of aforesaid circumstance. Neither the accused wilfully absented himself from appearing in the Court nor the petitioner was in a position to produce the accused before the Court. In view of thus position, it was suggested that the order of forfeiture was clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. It was next contended that the applicant was not served with notice and was not afforded the opportunity of hearing as envisaged by -section 515 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the State did not contest this position.

5. It is, thus quite clear that the impugned orders passed by the learned of Additional Sessions Judge are clearly in violation of section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. In result, this criminal Revision is accepted and the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, dated 30-6-1987 and 13-7-1987 are hereby set aside.

N.H.Q./M-1395/L Revision petition accepted.