' MUHAMMAD ANWARUL HAQ, J.---Both the 'appellants assailing the order dated 6.6.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nankana' Sahib whereby he has imposed a penalty of Rs, 1,00,000/- each after forfeiting their surety bonds which they had submitted for the bail of one Sajid Rashid accused, involved in case FIR No, 43/2008, under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 at Police Station Faizabad.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants -stood sureties only on humanitarian grounds and not for any lust or monitory gain: He further contends that order of the learned Trial Court is harsh, the appellants' financial position is not as such to pay the huge amount and they at least deserve suitable reduction in the same-. He has placed reliance on the cases of Karam Ali v. The State (2008 P.Cr.L.J. 213) and Gul Muhammad v. The State (2005 YLR 1602).
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General, however, controverted the arguments and supported the judgment and placing reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme. Court in Saeed Akhtar v. The State 2009 SCM R 834, contends that appellants do not deserve any more concession in this regard.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, going through the record and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2009 SCM R 834, we find no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Trial Court. It is by now well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in numerous cases such as "Zeeshan Kazmi Versus The State" (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 267), "Abdul Bari Versus Malik Amir Jan and 4 Others (PLD 1998 Supreme Court 50),- "Abbas ALL and another Versus The State" (2004 SCM R 879); "Muhammad Aslam and another Versus The State" (2004 SCM R 211), that no lenient view should he taken and entire amount of the bail bond should be recovered as an amount of penalty, rather in 2004 SCM R 211 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-- ' "It is abundantly known by now that this Court in numerous cases: like Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267, has ruled that in . Matters of sureties, no lenient view Should be taken and the entire amount of the bail bond should be recovered as an amount of penalty. That the failure thereof' and ,the reduction of amount of penalty tothe tune of 1/5th or I/10th was simply ridiculous and encouraged the people to go into abscondence."
' Both the judgments referred above by the learned counsel for the appellants are not relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case. As in the case of Karam Ali v. The State (2008 P.Cr.L.J. 213) the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court without any reduction in the surety bond and in the second case Gul Muhammad v. The State (2005 YLR 1602) it was observed that a balance should have been. Kept between undue leniency and undue severity by taking into consideration the financial status of the surety. We have observed that the learned Sessions Judge has already taken a very lenient view while reducing the penalty upto 50% in this case.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 6.6.2009 does not call for any interference and this appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
C.M. Nos. 655 and 744-M of 2010 7., As the main appeal has been dismissed by this Court, therefore, these miscellaneous petitions being lost their relevance Dismissed.