Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 111 of 1986, decided on 10th March,1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 410 & 514(2)‑‑Surety bond, forfeiture of‑‑Appeal against forfeiture order, held, was not competent but was allowed to be treated as revision.‑‑[Revision (criminal)].

‑‑‑S. 514(2)‑‑Surety bond, forfeiture of‑‑Amount to be confiscated‑ Petitioner stood surety, not for any monetary benefit‑‑No connivance about disappearance of accused alleged against petitioner‑‑Amount to be confiscated in favour of State was reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.5,000 in circumstances.

Dildar v. The State P L D 1963 S C 47 rel.

Malik Allah Yar for Petitioner.

Malik Rehmat Khan Awan for A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th March, 1986.

This is an appeal by Muhammad Khan, appellant, against the order of a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sargodha, dated 17‑2‑1986 ordering him to deposit Rs.50,000, being the full value of the surety bond submitted by him and directing recovery of the same by attachment of ,his movable property.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that Muhammad Khan stood surety on 21‑12‑1985 in the sum of Rs.50,000 for Mumtaz Khan, accused, in a double murder case pending against him and others in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge of Sargodha under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. and the surety had undertaken to produce the accused in Court on each date of hearing or in default thereof to forfeit the sum of Rs.50,000 to Government. Mumtaz Khan, accused, absented himself from Court on 6‑1‑1986, upon which the surety bond was forfeited and a show‑cause notice was issued to Muhammad Khan, surety, to deposit the surety amount before 27‑1‑1986, or to show cause by filing written reply as to why the said amount should not be got realised from him through due process of law. Mumtaz Khan, surety, filed his written reply on 3‑2‑1986 stating that he had no blood relations with the accused‑absconder and did not derive any monetary benefit by standing surety for him and further that he was trying his utmost to locate the accused and to produce him in Court. Though proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. were taken against the absconding accused, he could not be arrested. Finally on 17‑2‑1986, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order, as stated in para. 1 above.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the State and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection namely that no appeal lies and that the appellants should have preferred a revision petition. The objection is justified. Learned counsel for the appellant requests that this appeal may be permitted to be converted into a revision petition. Learned counsel for the State does not seriously oppose the A request. The appeal is, therefore, permitted to be converted into a revision petition and shall be disposed of as a revision petition.

4. The record has been perused. The order of forfeiture of the bond appears to be legal and correct. The only question that arises is regarding the amount which should have been ordered to be confiscated in favour of the State. It is apparent that the appellant stood surety for the accused out of charitable motive and not to derive any monetary benefit. Nothing has been urged on behalf of the State to show that the appellant had connived at the disappearance of the accused. In these circumstances, relying upon Dildar v. The State P L D 1963 S C 47, the amount to be confiscated in favour of the State is reduced from Rupees Fifty Thousand (Rs.50,000) to Rupees Five Thousand (Rs5,000).

5. This revision petition stands partly accepted in terms of reduction in the amount to be realized from the petitioner, as stated above.

6. The office shall make necessary entries in the records relating to the alteration of this appeal into a revision.

S.A. 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.