Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 528 of 1985, heard on 18th November, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss.514 & 439‑‑Court treating surety as an accused, such treatment not justified in law‑‑A surety in default, held, was not an accused.

‑‑‑Ss.514 & 439‑‑Surety ordered to deposit certain amount of money as half of amount of surety bond‑‑Appeal of surety dismissed‑‑Surety making hectic efforts to produce accused and ultimately accused was arrested‑‑Court in assessing extent of penalty, held, should have regard to matters as to whether person stood surety for some ulterior motive or only on humanitarian grounds and whether he was in league with accused in causing his absence or whether he made genuine effort, to secure attendance of accused‑‑A balance should be kept between undue leniency and undue severity in assessing extent of penalty‑‑Nothing found to show that petitioner stood surety for any ulterior motive‑ Amount of penalty reduced in circumstances.

M. Zahid Abbasi for Petitioner.

M.D. Chaudhry for the State.

Date of hearing: 18th November, 1985.

The facts giving rise to this petition for revision are as under:‑-

On 13‑7‑1982 Ali Akbar petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs.10,000 for one Muhammad Sabir, an accused in a case under Articles 13 and 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The accused absented himself. On 12‑10‑1983 a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the amount should not be recovered. On 28‑4‑1984 the petitioner appeared and stated that he was ready to deposit the amount. The Court thereupon ordered him to deposit Rs.5,000 till 14‑5‑1984. Feeling aggrieved by this order, he preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Sialkot, but the same was dismissed on 5‑5‑1985. He has come up in revision to question the correctness and propriety of the aforesaid orders.

2. The ground taken in the petition is that the petitioner had never executed any bond. However, this ground has not been pressed during the arguments. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner made hectic efforts to produce the accused and ultimately he was arrested and produced at Police Station Shakargarh, vide Report No. 25, dated 17‑9‑1984. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case a very lenient view in the matter of penalty was called for The learned state counsel does not oppose the prayer.

3. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. A certified copy of Report No‑25, dated 17‑9‑1984, has been placed on the file which shows that Muhammad Sabir accused was produced at Police Station Shakargarh by Muhammad Hussain constable and was lodged in the police lock‑up. The learned Magistrate appears to have treated the surety as an accused. In the impugned order it has been stated that the respondent (petitioner herein) pleaded guilty. A surety in default is not an accused and in assessing the extent of penalty the Court should have regard to matter as to whether he stood surety for some ulterior motive or only on humanitarian grounds and whether he was in league with the accused in causing his absence or had made genuine efforts to secure his attendance. The superior Courts have emphasized time and again that a balance should be kept between undue leniency and undue severity in assessing the extent of the penalty. In the instant case there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner stood surety for any ulterior motive. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,000. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

H.A.K. Revision partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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