HABIB-UR-RAHMAN SHAIKH, J.---The applicant calls, in question the impugned order dated 23-4- 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shandadpur in Criminal Revision Application No.6 of 2011, which came out from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Shandadpur on 26-1-2011.
2. Briefly facts of the application are that the applicant stood surety of the Car bearing Registration No.AFU-509 Toyota Corolla, the case property of a case, on behalf of its owner/lessee Manzoor Ahmed in the sum of Rs.500,000. He executed such bond on 1-4-2004 to produce the said car on each and every date of hearing during trial but after release of the car on superdari, same was not produced, therefore, on 12-9-2008 order for issuance of letter to Mukhtiarkar Nawabshah for recovery of surety amount was passed by the trial Court. Said order was challenged by the applicant/surety through Ciminal Revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shandadpur while deciding said Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2008 vide order dated 25-5-2008 observed that notice was not served upon the surety before passing the order dated 12-9-2008 by the trial Court, therefore, learned Revisional Court while setting aside the said order remanded the case to the trial Court with directions to provide the surety, an opportunity to show cause against imposition of penalty. The applicant/surety was given opportunity by issuing show-cause notice then reply of the same and after hearing the applicant again the trial Court dismissed the application of the applicant/surety and imposed surety amount upon him which order was, impugned before learned Additional Sessions Judge Shandadpur and in the second round, learned Additional Sessions Judge Shandadpur dismissed the Revision application while observing that such impugned order was passed in accordance with law and that from the perusal of entire revision as well as impugned order, it appears that the surety was bound to produce the said car and on failure he was bound to pay surety amount.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/surety, learned Assistant P.G for the State and also perused the record including orders of the trial Court as well as revisional court dated 26-1-2011 and 23-4-2011 respectively.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/surety contended that actual owner of the alleged car had purchased the same on instalments basis from First International Investment Bank and subsequently the said car was seized by the said Bank due to non-payment of instalments by the lessee to the bank. He further contended that after seizure of alleged car, the concerned Bank leased out the same to some one else and it was beyond the control of the applicant/ surety to produce the said car before the trial Court. According to learned counsel, such facts were not considered by the learned trial Court as well as revisional court in their orders; order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law; applicant is a poor person and he finally prays that order passed by the learned lower courts may be set aside.
5. Learned Assistant P.G for the State opposed the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and he supports the impugned orders passed by the lower courts and further submitted that the directions issued by the trial Court as well as revisional courts are according to law and need no interference and that the Revision merits no consideration and may be dismissed.
6. After hearing both the parties, I have perused the record, which reveals that present applicant/surety voluntarily appeared before the trial Court and stood surety of said car, executed such surety bond before the learned trial Court and bound himself to produce the said car on each and every date of hearing, when and where required, in failure he will pay the surety amount but neither the car in question was produced by the applicant before the trial Court nor paid surety amount as per surety bond executed by him. Learned trial Court repeatedly issued directions to the applicant/surety but he did not bother to produce the said car. When the order was passed by the trial Court, car was handed over to the owner in presence of surety/applicant anu from the very date of release of the car, it was not produced before the trial Court. It is also surprising fact as appeared from the order that the accused persons, who were on bail, also absconded from the trial Court. Many opportunities were given to the applicant by the trial Court to submit the reply but he failed to do so. Neither he replied the same nor produced the car in question.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, orders passed by the trial Court as well as impugned order dated 23-4-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shandadpur need no interference and the directions issued by the trial Court are upheld being passed according to law and there appear no error, irregularity or illegality in the orders of both the courts below, hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Application merits no consideration and same is dismissed accordingly.