MUHAMMAD UMA Versus THE STATE Haji Ameer Ahmed Khan , Syed Sarfraz Ahmad, A.A.-G.

1. This is a Criminal Revision Application under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned I11rd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, in a case of State v. Mohammad Ismail and others under sections 366, 307, 453, 34, P.P.C. The applicant had stood surety for accused Mohammad Ismail Shaukat, and Mohammad Hussain in the sum of Rs.10,000 each in April, 1978. Thereafter, the accused are said to have absconded and in spite of warrants issued by the Court their presence could not be procured. Mr. Haji Amir Ahmed learned counsel appearing for the applicant has urged that the learned trial Judge has failed to comply with the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. which has occasioned miscarriage of justice.

2. However, he has contended that instead of remanding the matter back to the learned trial Court this Court, may pass an appropriate order, as the applicant is a poor man and had stood surety due to benevolence. He had not gained any monetary benefit and therefore lenient view may be taken against him.

3. Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed learned, A.A.-G. appearing for the State has contended that the accused are still at large. The applicant has failed to produce the accused, and he had not even filed his explanation to show that he had stood surety due to benevolence and that he had not gained any monetary benefit.

4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents produced alongwith the revision application. It is an admitted position that the learned trial Judge has failed to follow the mandatory provisions of law and, therefore, on this submission the order on the face of its was illegal.

5. However, in view of the second submission of the learned counsel in order to save time of the Court, I feel it proper to dispose of this matter myself. It has been contended by the learned A counsel that the applicant had stood surety due to benevolence and that he had not gained any monetary benefit by standing surety of the accused.

6. In view of the above circumstances while relying upon P I. D 1963 SC 41 I reduce the amount of forfeiture from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 each and the applicant shall be liable to pay Rs.15,000 in aggregate.

7. With this modification the application is dismissed.

8. S.A./M-459/K Surety amount reduced.