Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 742 of 1970, heard on 13th April, 1985.

---S. 514--Surety bond--Forfeiture of--Surety failing to produce accused although given number of opportunities for doing so--Surety also absenting himself--Surety, ordered to furnish value of bond which was already leniently reduced by District Magistrate from Rs.10,000 to Rs.1,000--Order of District Magistrate found to be legal and proper and not calling for any interference, in revisional jurisdiction.

Nemo for Petitioner.

Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 13th April 1985.

This is a revision petitioner filed by Fateh Khan, petitioner, against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Sargodha dated 13-5-1970, dismissing his appeal, but otherwise reducing the amount payable on the bond from Rs.10,000 t . _,..: . Earlier, the Assistant Commissioner, Jauharabad, by his order, dates 16-3-1970, had called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000 on the surety bond furnished by him.

2. The name of Mr. Abdur Rashid, Advocate for the petitioner, appears in the cause list for today's date of hearing, but he has not turned up. Sh. Ihsan Ahmad, Advocate, appears for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, the record has been perused. It appears that on 12-11-1968 Fateh Khan stood surety for Muhammad Ashraf, accused, in a smuggling case. On 30-5-1969, Muhammad Ashraf, accused, failed to appear in Court. The bond furnished by Fateh Muhammad, petitioner, stood forfeited, The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, thereafter, issued show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why the full amount of the bond should not be recovered from him. In response to the show-cause notice, the petitioner appeared in Court on 29-7-1969 and admitted that he had stood surety for Muhammad Ashraf, accused, who had absented himself from the Court and requested that he be given time to produce the accused in Court. Notwithstanding that about a dozen opportunities were given to produce the accused in Court, the petitioner failed to do so. On 16-3-1970, the petitioner also absented himself, when ex parte proceedings were taken against him and it was ordered that Rs.10,000 be recovered from him. A number of contentions have been raised in the revision petition, but do not find support from the file. In these circumstances, the petitioner appears to have been validly ordered to furnish the reduced value of the bond. The learned District Magistrate was lenient in reducing the amount of the bond to be recovered from the petitioner from Rs.10,000 to Rs.1,000. The order of the learned District Magistrate is legal and proper. No interference in the revisional jurisdiction is called for.

3. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.

4. The file shall be sent to the District Magistrate, Sargodha, for recovery of the amount from the petitioner.

S.A.

Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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