1. ' By this criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant has assailed the orders, dated 14-4-2003 passed by 1st Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Siikkur and order, dated 1-4-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur in revisional jurisdiction.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 19th July, 2001 a direct complaint was filed against accused S.I.P. Zulfiqar Ali Soomro and applicant Syed Tassadaq Hussain Shah stood surety for the accused in the sum of Rs,40,000 before the trial Court. On 16th August, 2002 the accused remained absent before the trial Court on the ground of sickness of his mother. His absence was condoned and the matter was adjourned to 31st August, 2002. On 31-8-2002 also accused remained absent but his absence was condoned. Again on 10-9-2002 accused remained absent therefore, trial Court issued notice to surety and warrant of arrest was issued against the accused. On 27-9-2002 and 14-10-2002 accused remained absent without intimation, therefore, bail bond was forfeited.
3. Thereafter accused continuously remained absent on 2-11-2002, 20-11-2002 and 2-12-2002. On 3-1- 2003 the Advocate for surety moved application before the trial Court for adjournment and sought time to produce accused. The matter was adjourned to 17-1-2003 but surety failed to produce the accused. On 6-1-2003 accused remained absent and surety sought time to produce him. Again on 17-1-2003 surety repeated his similar request and the Court had given him last chance to produce the accused on 30-1-2003. On that date neither accused appeared nor surety. Subsequently, surety appeared and moved application for further time but his request was turned down as sufficient time was already given to him and he failed to produce the accused.
4. ' The surety preferred revision before the Sessions Court against the order of the trial Court which was dismissed by impugned order, dated 1-4-2003.
5. ' I. Have heard Mr. Shaikh Amanullah learned counsel on behalf of applicant and Mr. Ghulam Dastagir Shahani learned Additional Advocate-General on behalf of State. He has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Safeer v. Fakeer Khan and 2 others reported in 2000 SCM R 312.
6. ' Mr. Amanullah Shaikh after arguing at length requested that the penalty imposed upon surety may be reduced.
7. ' The perusal of record shows that there are concurrent findings of two Courts below. No illegality or impropriety has been pointed out in the impugned order. The accused failed to appear before the trial Court from 16th August, 2002 till 3rd January, 2003. Ample time was given by the trial Court to the applicant/surety for producing the accused but he failed to do so. Even on the last date i,e, 30- 1-2003 applicant remained absent before the trial Court without intimation. Thus, no mitigating circumstances has been indicated for the reduction of surety amount. Keeping in view the dicta of apex Court in the case of Muhammad Safeer v. Fakeer Khan and 2 others reported in 2000 SCM R 312, the present criminal miscellaneous application merits no consideration and stands dismissed.