MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and another
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the trial court imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner, who stood surety for an accused person who failed to appear for trial. The core legal question was whether the penalty imposed under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was excessive and whether the court should exercise its discretion to remit a portion of the penalty. The High Court found that the trial court followed the correct procedure in summoning the surety and providing opportunities to explain the absence of the accused. However, noting that the petitioner did not stand surety for personal gain or consideration, the Court held that a lenient view was appropriate. Relying on judicial precedent, the Court affirmed the legality of the proceedings but modified the penalty, reducing it from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000. The key principle laid down is that while the imposition of a penalty for a surety's failure to produce an accused is lawful, the court retains discretion under Section 514(5) to remit the penalty amount based on the circumstances, particularly the absence of personal gain.
- Does a court have the discretion to remit a portion of the penalty imposed on a surety under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of personal gain a relevant factor for a court when deciding whether to reduce a penalty imposed on a surety?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 514(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner stood surety for one Ghulam Rasool an accused in case F.I.R. No,161 dated 28-4-1999 registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Garjak , Gujranwala. The said accused did not appear before the trial Court during the trial and the petitioner surety was summoned to face the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C.
The petitioner appeared before the trial Court and submitted reply on 29-4-2002. The trial Court being not satisfied with the reply while passing the impugned order directed the petitioner to deposit Rs,50,000 in Court till 6-5-2002.
2. Admit. Notice. Learned Law Officer accepts notice and while supporting the impugned order has opposed the instant criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither beneficiary of the accused nor he got any consideration to stand as surety and that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is harsh in nature and a lenient view be taken.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. During proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. opportunities were provided to the petitioner for the production of Ghulam Rasul accused and also petitioner was given opportunities to explain his position. Prima facie, I see no illegality in the procedure adopted by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.
6. Under section 514(5), Cr.P.C. to remit any portion of the penalty is within the discretion of the Court. Since tnere is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner stood surety for sortie personal gain, a lenient view, in the circumstances of this case would meet the ends of justice.
Keeping in view the dictum laid down in Sher Ali and another v. The State (2000 P.Cr.P.J.. 94), I am persuaded to take a lenient view with regard to the quantum of penalty. Accordingly, I reduce the penalty from Rs,50,000 to Rs,25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand) to be paid within sixty days.
With this modification the instant criminal revision stands disposed of.