ZAFAR IQBAL ANJUM vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition arose from proceedings initiated under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the petitioner, Zafar Iqbal Anjum, who stood surety for an accused, Saeed Iqbal. Following the accused's failure to appear during the pendency of his bail application, the application was dismissed, and the trial court imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000 on the surety. The petitioner challenged this order, citing his absence abroad and lack of knowledge regarding the accused's non-appearance. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel did not press the petition on merits but requested a reduction in the penalty amount, noting that a compromise had been reached between the main accused and the complainant. The High Court dismissed the petition but exercised its discretion to reduce the penalty. The court held that while the surety is liable for the accused's absence, the petitioner's absence from the country and the subsequent compromise between the parties constituted mitigating circumstances justifying a reduction of the penalty from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 10,000.
- Can a court reduce the amount of a penalty imposed under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a compromise between the accused and the complainant constitute a mitigating factor for reducing a surety bond penalty?
- Is the absence of a surety from the country a valid ground for the court to exercise discretion in reducing a penalty imposed for the accused's non-appearance?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Zafar Iqbal Anjum petitioner stood surety for one Saeed Iqbal accused in case F.I.R. No,63 of 2000 registered at Police Station Bhung who had been granted bail. However the said Saeed Iqbal absented himself during pendency of bail application, therefore, his said application was dismissed and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the petitioner as a consequence whereof penalty of Rs,40,000 was imposed upon the petitioner, vide order dated 27- 6-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sadiqabad. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after submitting that the petitioner had gone abroad and, therefore, could not appear before the learned trial Court and did not know about the absence of Saeed Iqbal accused, submits that he does not want to press this petition and prays that the amount of penalty may be reduced.
3. This petition is dismissed. However, since the petitioner had admittedly gone abroad and was not available in Pakistan when proceedings against him had been initiated under section 514, Cr.P.C.
And also that the compromise had been effected between the main accused i,e, Saeed Iqbal and the complainant, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs,10, 000 (Rupees Ten Thousand). revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.