Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 141 of 1976, heard on 25th May 1976.

‑‑‑ S. 514‑Security bonds, forfeiture of‑Mitigation Petitioner surety trying all along to produce accused in Court and eventually accused appearing before Court‑Petitioner's bonds confiscated without affording him proper opportunity of hearing‑Amount of confiscated bonds reduced, in circumstances.

Dildar v. State P L D 1963 S C 47 ref.

M. Rafique Butt for Petitioner.

A. R. Shabab Mufti for the State.

Date of hearing : 25th May 1976.

Liaquat Ali son of Barkat Ali stood surety and executed bond in the amount of &s. 5,000 for one Muhammad Ramzan who was accused of offence under section 326/324, P. P. C. in a case pending in the Court of Syed Shahid Hussain, Magistrate 1st Class, Multan. The accused failed to appear ire Court on four dates in May and June, 1975 and as a result thereof the trial Court passed order under section 514, Cr. P. C., whereby it confiscated the bail bond and directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount of bond as penalty which on appeal was reduced from Re. 5,000 to 2,000 vide the order dated 26‑12‑1975, passed by the learned District Magistrate, Multan. The petitioner filed revision against it which was admitted to a full hearing by this Court eon 2‑4‑1976 and is before me for disposal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs. 2,000 as reduced by the lower Appellate Court is excessive. He relies on Dildar v. State (P L D 1963 S C 47) in which the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that the sureties should not be discouraged otherwise nobody will come forward resulting in the accused remaining in custody pending trial or hearing of the appeal. The learned counsel for the State does not seriously oppose the reduction of the amount of surety confiscated from the petitioner from Re. 2,000 to any amount less than that. He submits that the accused for whom the petitioner stood surety subsequently appeared before the Court due to the efforts of the petitioner and that the amount of surety was confiscated by the learned trial Magistrate merely on the failure of the present petitioner to appear before the trial Court on the adjourned date of hearing and without providing the petitioner with proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, I consider it a fit case in which the amount of penalty under section 514, Cr. P. C. on account of the surety bond confiscated from the petitioner be reduced.

3. For the foregoing reasons the amount of penalty ordered to be recovered from the petitioner by the learned trial Magistrate is reduced to Rs. 1000 (one thousand). The petitioner shall pay this amount within one month of the date hereof. With this modification the present petition of revision is dismissed and is disposed of accordingly.

Petition allowed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.