1. ' This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, whereby he imposed fine of Rs,2,00,000/= (Rupees Two Lacs only) upon the applicant/surety in Sessions Case No, 1085 of 2004 Re-State us. Muhammad Hassan @ Hassan Brohi and others arising out of Crime No, 125 of 2004 of Police Station Ratodero under Sections 302, 148 and 149, PPC.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of above revision application are that vide order dated 22.06.2005 accused Muhammad Hassan was granted bail by this Court in Crl. Bail Appin. No, S-234 of 2005 in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/= (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court in the above mentioned case. The applicant stood surety for accused Muhammad Hassan, filed such affidavit dt.21.07.2005, surety was accepted, such bond was executed and surety was directed to produce the accused on each and every date of hearing.
3. Accused remained absent on 21.02.2013 as such bail bond was forfeited by trial Court. Notice U/S 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued requiring the surety to deposit the forfeited bond or show-cause as to why such amount may not be recovered from him. The relevant portion of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero dt.10.10.2014 is reproduced as under: "Reply to notice under Section 514, C.P.C. Found not satisfactory and sufficient time was given/extended to applicant but he remained fail to produce accused Muhammad Hassan @ Hassan as he stood surety for him but he failed to discharge his liabilities as such he deserve no leniency as accused is involved in a heinous offence. Looking into circumstances and facts of the case the request of applicant/surety is declined. He is directed to pay the fine penalty amount of Rs,2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) in 4 equal installments within 4 months in Court."
4. ' Mr. Zaf ar Ali Malgani, learned counsel for applicant/su: .-:ty mainly argued that applicant stood surety for accused purely on humanitarian grounds and he was not aware about the absence of accused prom trial Court; that on coming to know about the absence of accused the applicant/surety had gone in search of accused but he could not find any clue. He further argued that recently applicant came to know that on account of murderous dispute, accused has shifted to some unknown place.
5. ' Mr. Muneer Abbasi, learned D.D.P.P argued that accused remained absent in trial Court and notice U/S 514, Cr.P.C. And issued upon the surety and it was served and replied but reply was not found satisfactory. It has also been argued that proper procedure as contained in Section 514, Cr.P.C. Has been adopted in this case.
6. ' In order to properly appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, Section 514, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced as under:
514. Procedure on forfeiture of bond.--(1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Magistrate of the first class, ' or when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, ' that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show-cause why it should not be paid.
(2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the movable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead.
(3) Such warrant may be executed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which issued it; and it shall authorize the attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to such person without such limits, when endorsed by the [District Officer (Revenue)] within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such property is found.
(4) If such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered by such attachment and sale, the person so bound shall be liable, by order of the Court which issued the warrant, to imprisonment in the civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.
(5) The Court may at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.
(6) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond.
(7) When any person who has furnished security under Section 107 or Section 118 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of this bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under Section 514-B, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted, of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety, or sureties, and, if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved.
7. From the record it appears that applicant was stood surety for accused on 21.07.2005 and he also executed a bond for appearance of accused on each date of hearing but as per record accused remained absent from Court and trial Court issued notice U/S 514, Cr.P.C. Which was replied. From the record it appears that trial Court while passing impugned order has adopted proper procedure as contained in Section 514, Cr.P.C. As regards to contentions of learned counsel that entire surety amount has been forfeited and no lenient view has been taken by trial Court. On this point honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ghulam Dastagir and 3 others v. The. State (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 116) has been pleased to observe as under: "11. The present law and order situation prevailing in the country and the deterioration of the moral values in the society in the past 3/4 decades requires that provisions of Section 514, Cr.P.C. Should not only be adhered to strictly but in case of non-appearance of the accused, a surety should be held liable for forfeiture of full amount of its bonds for the reason that moral values of our society as were in the sixties are different today."
8. ' In another case reported as Waqas Mehmood and another vs. Wajid Hussain and another (2012 P.Cr.L.J 1936), the honourable Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir also supported the view taken in the above case and maintained the forfeiture of full surety amount.
9. Once accused person jumps bail bond, entire surety amount becomes liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. In this case surety has not brought any mitigating circumstances. Approach of trial Court appears to be dynamic and progressive oriented with the desire to discourage the accused person to jump bail bond. Order of trial Court is based upon sound reasons and did not require interference.
10. ' For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this revision application which is, dismissed.