' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---The petitioner was proceeded against in case registered vide F.I.R.
No, C-30 of 2007 dated 26-1-2007 at Police Station F.I.A., Lahore. It was alleged that the petitioner got published an advertisement in daily Jang dated 8-3-2007 (U.K.) inviting applications for grant of work permit visa for U.K., Canada and Australia without permission of Protectorate of Emigration, Lahore. The petitioner was allowed bail on 16-2-2008, but he left for U.K. And the bail bonds were cancelled on 19-10-2009 and ultimately the case was consigned to record in terms of section 512, Cr.P.C. On 24-6-2010. The petitioner filed an application under section 205, Cr.P.C. With the trial Court submitting therein that he would appear before the Court in due course; that he was stuck up in U.K on account of pendency of his application for extension of his visa in U.K before the appellate authority. His application under section 205, Cr.P.C. Was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 25-9-2010, inter alia on the ground that since the proceedings in terms of section 512, Cr.P.C. Stood finalized, the case cannot be revived unless and until the accused himself appears before the Court. He filed criminal revision before the learned High. Court, which too was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate that it is a hardship case; that the petitioner demonstrated his bona fide by making an application for dispensation of his appearance under section 205, Cr.P.C.; that he is prepared to give an undertaking before the trial Court and would furnish requisite fresh bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court for appearance by or before 1st September, 2011.
3. Learned Deputy Attorney-General who was issued notice on the last date of hearing, has appeared. He submits that although an absconder has no right of audience, but since the petitioner, through his learned counsel, has given an undertaking to appear before the trial Court on the afore-mentioned date and also undertakes to furnish sufficient security before the said Court, he has no objection if his appearance is dispensed with subject, of course, to the afore- referred condition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan. There is no cavil to the proposition that an absconder, ordinarily, has no right of audience, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the undertaking given and the fair stand taken by the learned DAG, we are inclined to allow this petition, provided, the petitioner produces two persons/sureties before the trial Court who would furnish bonds to the tune of 5 million each to the effect that the petitioner will appear by or before 1st September, 2011 and if he fails to appear, the bonds would stand forfeited. Needless to observe that in the event of forfeiture of bonds, the trial Court shall proceed with the matter as mandated in law.
5. The petition is converted into appeal and allowed in terms noted above.