1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.---The present applicant stood surety for accused Rano son of Tayab and had executed a surety bond on 26-3-2003 for a sum of 4100,000. After having been released on bail accused. Rano jumped bail on 25-10-2003. As a consequence N.B.Ws. Were issued against him, surety bond was forfeited and notice to the surety was issued under section 514, Cr.P.C. Which notice was repeated for number of times. Ultimately 7 years after the accused had jumped bail, the surety engaged counsel in 2010. Vide order dated-18-9-2010 the s learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Shikarpur ordered that the entire bond amount be imposed upon surety/present applicant as penalty with direction to make payment within two months from date of passing of that order.
2. This order was challenged in appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 16-3-2011 decided to take a lenient view and reduced the amount of penalty fromRs,100,000 toRs,50,000 with direction to the applicant to deposit the same within a month from passing of that order failing which the amount would be recovered by the trial Court under writ of attachment against immovable property of the surety. With such direction, the appeal was dismissed. This revision application has been filed against the appellate order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur on 16-3-2011.
3. Learned counsel submiitted that for an offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance the applicant was convicted by the trial Court vide order dated 8-11-2008 against which order he filed appeal and his appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 8-4-2009 and for this period he was behind bars. Learned counsel submitted that since he was behind bars for this period for a year and a half the bond should not be forfeited. He relied upon the case of Tahir Mehmood Bashir v. The State and another (2010 YLR 466), Sardar Ahmad v. The State (1993 PCr.LJ 2451) and Muhammad khan v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 2028).
4. ' I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
5. ' In Tahir Mehmood Bashir's case (Supra), penalty ofRs,12,500 had been imposed upon the petitioner because the petitioner had stood surety for accused person and that accused person had jumped bail and did not appear before the trial Court on 1242-2007. Learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court observed as under:- "4. It has been noticed that the above noted accused was granted ad interim pre-arrest bail and had appeared before the learned Court below on two dates, i,e, 3-12-2007 and 8-12-2007 but could not appear on ' the third date, i,e, 12-12-2007 that subsequently, on 19-12-2007 he appeared before this Court and was allowed ad-interini pre-arrest bail. It has been further noticed that there is nothing on record that the petitioner is a professional surety and stood surety for the accused for any monetary benefit, which shows that he stood surety only on humanitarian grounds. Besides he is stated to be a student of M.A. And has no source of income. In these circumstances, the penalty imposed upon him appears to be harsh and is liable to the reduced. Accordingly the amount of penalty is reduced toRs,5,000 which would meet the needs of justice in the circumstances of the case."
6. ' Perusal of the above indicates that the accused person in the reported case while he did not appear on 12-12-2007 appeared before the. Court within one week thereafter and the court reduced the amount of penalty fromRs,12,500 toRs,5,000. This case if at all supports the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It should not be lost sight of that whereas in the reported case within seven days of his absence the accused appeared before the court, in the present case it is after seven years of the absence that the surety appeared before the Court and the accused was at large for atleast five years after his first abscondence.
7. ' In Muhammad Khan's case (Supra), Muhammad Khan stood surety forRs,50,000 on behalf of the accused. Accused absented himself from the Court on 6-1-1986. Surety upon show-cause notice stated that it had no blood relation with the accused absconder. Learned Sessions Judge ordered him to deposit entire amount of the surety bond. Mr. Justice Rustam S. Sidhwa acting as Single Judge of Lahore High Court (his lordship subsequently graced the Supreme Court) held that the order of the forfeiture of the bond appears to be legal and correct. However, it reduced the amount fromRs,50,000 toRs,5,000. It may be pointed out that in the reported case the trial Court ordered forfeiture of the entire amount of surety whereas in the present case the learned Sessions Judge has already shown indulgence and has reduced the amount of surety fromRs,100,000 toRs,50,000.
8. ' Last case relied upon by learned counsel is that of Allah Divaya. In this case surety bond ofRs,15,000 was executed. The accused absented on 13-10-1992. Consequently, the Court ordered forfeiture of surety bond for an amount ofRs,10,000. On revision, High Court reduced the amount of surety fromRs,10,000 toRs,2,000 but it is also noted in the order that the accused immediately thereafter appeared before the Lower Court. In the present case the accused person has remained absconder for 5 years till his arrest in 2008 in another matter and it was seven years before surety came and submitted before the trial Court.
9. ' Learned Sessions Judge has already shown leniency and indulgence and considering the conduct of the surety that for seven years the surety could not be served and it appeared in the Court after seven years, no further indulgence is called for. Consequently, this criminal' revision application is dismissed.