HAJI SOOMRO vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition was filed against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, dated 17-4-2002, which reduced the penalty imposed on the surety from Rs.50,000 to Rs.10,000. The applicant had stood surety for an accused facing trial under the Arms Ordinance 1965, who remained absent on three dates of hearing due to illness supported by a medical certificate, but was subsequently produced by the surety. The core legal question concerned the justification of imposing a penalty on a surety when the accused's absence was due to illness and not wilful evasion, and when the accused was eventually produced. The court held that the surety's penalty should be set aside, following precedent where similar circumstances warranted excusing the surety. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's absence is excused due to verified illness and the surety subsequently produces the accused, the imposition of a penalty on the surety is unwarranted.
- Whether a penalty can be imposed on a surety when the accused's absence is caused by illness and supported by a medical certificate?
- Does the subsequent production of the accused by the surety mitigate the penalty for previous non-appearances?
- Whether the appellate court's reduction of surety penalty is sustainable when precedent dictates setting aside the penalty entirely under similar circumstances?
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur passed on 17-4-2002 whereby he reduced the penalty of Rs.50,000 to Rs.10,000 upon the applicant/surety.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this revision application are that the applicant Haji had stood surety for accused Agha Khan who is involved in a case under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance pending before the Court of Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M., Sukkur. The accused Agha Khan as per the diary of the case remained absent on three hearings i.e. 3-1-2002, 1-2-2002 and 2-3- 2002. On the next date i.e. 14-3-2002, the accused Agha Khan was produced by his surety (applicant Haji) as per the time allowed to him by the learned trial Court. However, the trial Court in the circumstances imposed penalty of Rs.50,000 which was reduced to Rs.10,000 in appeal as stated above.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the accused had remained absent because of his illness and such medical certificate was produced before the learned trial Court and that the absence of the accused was neither deliberate nor wilful. The accused never intended to abscond or evade the process of law. He has placed reliance upon the case of Ghulam Qadir Siyal v. The State reported as 1997 PCr.LJ 554.
4. Mr. Ghulam Dastagir A. Shahani, learned Additional Advocate-General in view of the above- referred decision does not support the impugned order.
5. In the above-referred case in almost similar circumstances, the accused who had remained absent from 25-5-1993 to 25-5-1994 was excused in his absence and the order of imposition of penalty of Rs.35,000 upon the surety was set aside.
6. In this case the accused remained absent for only three hearings and the reason for the absence is his illness which is supported by medical certificate.
7. In my view the above-referred case fully supports the case of the applicant. In view of which the impugned order dated 17-4-2002 passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The revision application is allowed and disposed of alongwith listed application.