MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs THE STATE
This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the forfeiture of a surety bond. The petitioner had stood surety for an accused in a criminal case registered under sections 380/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon the accused's failure to appear before the trial court, the petitioner's surety bond of Rs. 50,000 was forfeited under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and a warrant of attachment was issued. The petitioner's subsequent appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. Before the High Court, the petitioner sought a reduction of the forfeited amount, arguing he acted on humanitarian grounds without personal benefit, a position to which the State offered no objection. The Court, exercising its discretion, held that the original penalty was excessively harsh under the circumstances. Consequently, the Court reduced the forfeited surety amount by half, to Rs. 25,000, while maintaining the underlying order of forfeiture.
- Can a court reduce the amount of a forfeited surety bond under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of personal benefit to a surety a relevant factor in mitigating the penalty of bond forfeiture?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' This revision petition has been filed against order, dated 29-9-1999 vide which the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that case F.I.R. No,221 of 1991 under sections 380/411, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Sahiwal against Muhammad Sarwar. The accused was released on bail by the trial Court and the petitioner stood surety for the accused and he submitted his surety bond in the sum of Rs,50,000. During the trial of the case the accused did not appear before the Court and so notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to the surety for 14-9-1995. He also absented from the Court and his surety bond was forfeited in favour of the State and warrant of attachment of his property for the recovery of surety amount was issued.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against order, dated 14-9-1995 which was dismissed on 29-9- 1999 on the ground of limitation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he will be satisfied if the forfeited amount is reduced. There is no objection from the other side.
5. The petitioner stood surety on humanitarian ground only and he took no benefit out of the surety bond. The impugned order of the trial Court is too harsh. The State also has no objection to the reduction of the surety amount of the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, the surety amount is reduced to one-half equal to Rs,25,000, which is liable to be recovered from the petitioner in accordance with law.
' This petition is disposed of accordingly and the impugned order is maintained.
Surety amount reduced.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABDUL FATTAH vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 1823
- Sardar MUHAMMAD ASIF vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 1018