1. Granted.
2 & 3. The applicant Shahzad Ahmed Hashmi, who stood surety for accused Malik Abid approached the trial Court for return of the surety on 13-10-2004 without realizing that said Malik Abid jumped the bail. The bail was cancelled and bail bond were forfeited on 15-7-2000 and NBW against the said accused and applicant was noticed in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South treated the application as notice to the applicant and passed the impugned order, which reads as follows:-- "Surety is present. The surety (bond) is already forfeited on 15-7-2000, Nazir is directed to en cash Special Saving Certificate and deposit the sums of Rs,50,000 in Government head in State Bank of Pakistan and report within a week. Rest amount be deposited if interest accrued in the benevolent fund of Advocate in Sindh Bar Council." The order has been impugned through this revision application. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned State Counsel.
I have perused the case diaries. No doubt, the applicant was noticed to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed but such notice has not been served as evident from the case diary. Even if I take the presence of the applicant before the Court as a notice even then the impugned order is not sustainable in law for the reason that the order imposing the fine has not been passed. Perhaps, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi South has not bothered to go through the provisions of section 514 of Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to A the procedure on forfeiture of Bond. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The applicant is allowed a week's time to file reply of show cause why the penalty in the full amount of Bond may not be imposed. On submission of the reply, an appropriate order in accordance with law to be passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Cr. Revision Application stands disposed of.