' S.A. RABBANI, J.--- Petitioner Karam Ali submitted a surety bond in the Sessions Court Jacobabad in sessions case for producing some accused persons before the Court on dates of hearing. The accused persons failed to appear before the court and, after necessary proceeding all of them were declared proclaimed offenders. Notice was issued to surety, who according to the impugned order failed to furnish a reply to the show-cause notice. Since the surety petitioner failed to discharge his liability, a penalty was imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad and, vide order dated 12-3-2005, it was ordered that an amount of Rs,2,40,000 be recovered from him within a period of one month. Against this order of Sessions Judge Jacobabad, present revision has been filed.
2. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure laid down under section 514, Cr.P.C. Has not been followed by the Sessions Court, Jacobabad and it was legal requirement that, in the first instance, the Court shall record grounds for forfeiture of the bond whereafter notice has to be issued to the surety to show cause or to pay the penalty. According to him, the impugned order lacks compliance with the mandatory law given under section 514, Cr.P.C.
And thus liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he referred to the cases reported as Adho Khan v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 35, Muhammad Abdullah and 2 others v. The State PLD 2003 Pesh. 173, Haji Noor Muhammad v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 1613, Naseer Muhammad v. The State 1996 PCr.LJ 860, Nazar Muhammad v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 2063 and Ghulam Sarwar v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 274.
3. Mr. Arshad Lodhi, learned Assistant Advocate-General, contended that the petitioner, while standing surety for appearance of the accused persons before the court, took a liability by executing a surety bond and he failed in discharging the liability to produce the accused persons.
He submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of bond as he was given sufficient time to produce the accused before the Court but he failed in his duty. In support of his contention the learned Assistant Advocate-General referred to the cases reported as 2003 PCr.LJ 497, 2002 PCr.LJ 111 and 2004 PCr.LJ 163.
4. The impugned order not clearly mention as to when the surety bond was forfeited and that grounds therefor were recorded before this order. The learned Sessions Judge observed, in the impugned order, that the surety executed bond for producing these accused before the Court but he has failed to produce all these accused persons on any date of hearing thus had violated terms and condition of the bond and therefore, he has made himself liable to penalty, and thus penalty was imposed.
5. The most relevant ruling amongst those cited by Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi is Adho Khan v. State given by Mr. Justice Wahid Bux Brohi of Sindh High court on the point involved here. It was observed in that case that a show-cause notice is to be issued to the person who executed bond only after the forfeiture of the bond. In that case, all actions were taken in one stroke, that is to say, the bond was forfeited and penalty was imposed on him, and on this account, the order imposing penalty was found unsustainable. The impugned order in that case was deemed only to be an order of forfeiture of the bond and the case was remanded with the direction that the proper show-cause notice be issued to the applicant surety under section 514(1), Cr.P.C. And after affording a reasonable opportunity of furnish explanation in order to show cause. An order may be passed in accordance with law.
6. The case law given by Mr. Arshad Lodhi is about the liability of a surety who executes a bond, but the point involved here was not specifically involved in these cases.
7. In the present case it appears that no formal order about forfeiture of the bond was passed before the impugned order and the impugned order mentions that by not producing the accused before the court the petitioner surety had violated the terms and condition of the bond.
8. The impugned order in the present case may be deemed to be the order of forfeiture of the bond and, treating it as such, the matter is remanded to the Sessions Judge, Jacobabd with a direction to issue proper show-cause notice to the surety petitioner under section 514(1), Cr.P.C. And after affording an opportunity to him to reply, further orders be passed in accordance with law. The revision is disposed of accordingly.