' ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 30.10.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, whereby he imposed fine of Rs,200,000/- (Rupees Two Lac only) upon the applicant/surety in Sessions Case No,256/2000.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Application are that accused Khadim Chachar was granted bail in the sum of Rs,200,000/- in Sessions Case No,256/2000 re: State v.
Muhib Chachar and others (Crime No,34/2000 of Police Station Hamayoon, under Sections 302, 324, 114, 148, 149, P.P.C.). Applicant Mahboob son of Rustam Ali Mahar stood surety for accused Khadim Chachar on 18.1.2005. After his release on bail, accused Khadim Chachar remained absent from the trial Court on 04.4.2005 and on 14.4.2005 an application for excuse of his absence was filed before the trial Court, which was rejected, whereafter the learned trial Court after forfeiting the bail bond of the accused, ordered issuance of N.B.Ws against the accused and notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C. To his surety. The accused could not be served, as such, he was declared proclaimed offender. The applicant/surety was served with notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C. On 19.10.2011, engaged his Counsel, who sought time to file reply to notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C., but the same was not filed upto 01.12.2011, whereafter the applicant/ surety also disappeared. It appears from the record that on 22.11.2012 the surety was traced out. He kept on seeking time to submit reply and ultimately on 30.10.2013 he submitted his reply to notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C.
Stating therein that accused Khadim Chachar was murdered on 25.5.2011 and in this regard he produced copy of FIR Crime No,57/2011 of Police Station Jaagan at Hamayoon. The learned trial court did not accept such explanation of the applicant/surety and imposed full amount of surety of Rs,200,000/- as penalty upon him.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ali Memon, advocate for the applicant/surety has mainly argued that the applicant had stood surety for accused Khadim Chachar purely on humanitarian ground and he was not aware about the absence of the accused from the trial Court; that on coming to know about absence of the accused, the surety had gone in search of accused and came to know that the accused has been murdered on 25.5.2011, hence, according to him, he could not produce the accused, therefore, some lenient view may be taken against the applicant/surety in this case.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant/surety at considerable length and perused the entire record minutely.
5. It is worth to mention here that prior to this, Criminal Revision Application No,64. Of 2013 was filed by the applicant/surety, which was dismissed on 18.01.2016 for non-prosecution. Instead of seeking restoration of the said revision application, the applicant has preferred this second revision application. This aspect of the case also reflects the conduct of the applicant that he was not pursuing his case diligently.
6. Any how. Turning to the merits of the instant revision application, it appears from the record that accused Khadim Chachar, for whom the applicant stood surety after his release on bail remained absent before the trial Court on 04.04.2005, and on the next date i.e. on 14.01.2005 an application for condoning his absence was filed, which was turned down by the learned trial Court, which followed issuance of N.B.Ws against the accused and notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C. to his surety. The most important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of in this case, is that the applicant/surety after service of notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C. put in appearance before the trial Court, engaged Counsel and sought time for filing of reply, which was granted, but instead of filing reply to notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C. the applicant/surety also deserted away. After that, he appeared before the trial Court on 22.11.2012 and again kept on seeking time to submit reply, which was filed on 30.10.2013 with the explanation that accused Khadim Chachar was murdered on 25.5.2011.
7. The above conduct of the, applicant/surety shows that he was not fair enough and sincere to trace out and produce the accused, when he was initially served with the notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C. And due to his incapability to produce the accused he himself deserted away. In such circumstances, the applicant/surety did not deserve any leniency, therefore, in my view the learned trial Court was very much right in imposing full doze of surety amount of Rs,200,000/- as penalty upon the applicant/surety. In the reported case of Ghulam Dastagir and 3,others v. The State (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 116), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to record following observations:- "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. The above observation of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was followed by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in reported case of Waqas Mahmood and another v.
Wajid Hussain and another (2012 PCr.LJ 1936) and order of forfeiture of full surety was maintained.
9. In view of above, the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the learned trial Court does not call for interference by this B Court. The revision application filed by the applicant/surety is devoid of any merit, therefore, the same was dismissed in limine along with listed applications by short order passed in the early part of the day and above are the reasons in support of the same.
10. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the trial Court for proceeding against the applicant/surety for recovery of penalty amount in accordance with law.