1. ' By this revision application, the attachment of immovable property of the applicant, Muhammad Umer ordered by the Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi has been called in question.
2. ' The chief contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned trial Judge passing the impugned order has no followed the procedure as envisaged in subsection (1) of section 514, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, the said order is not legally sustainable.
3. ' In the murder case pending before the learend Additional Sessions Judge, the acussed Muhammad lqbal was granted bail and the applicant stood surety for him, furnishing security in the sum of Rs,25,000. The said accused attended the Court regularly until 10th January, 1983 when he was called absent. Notice was issued to the surety (applicant) who, however, failed to attend the Court whereupon impugned order of attachment of his immovable property was made by the learned trial Court.
4. ' The learned counsel for the parties have been heard in support of their respective viewpoints.
5. ' In this connection, reference may be made to the case reported as Muhammad All v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 14 wherein it was held:-- 'The ratio decidendi of the above authorities is that as soon as accused remains absent in violation of the bond executed by him and his surety for his appearance, to begin with the Court concerned will order forfeiture of the bond, giving reasons for such for-feiture. The next step that is to be taken by the Court is to call upon the person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or show cause why it should not be paid. If instead of making payment of the amount of the forfeited bond, explanation is furnished by the surety, the Court has to make a summary inquiry and record its finding of the explanation should or should not be accepted."
6. ' For the purpose of examining the instant case in the light of above authority. I have perused the diary sheet of the case. It is disclosed in the diary-sheet that the accused remained absent for the first time when the learned trial Judge on 10th January, 1983 passed an order which reads as under:- "The accused called absent without any intimation. A.P.P. Mr. Shafi Hashmi filed memo, of appearance on behalf of the State. Case is adjourned to 29th January, 1983. Issue N.B.W. Against the accused and notice to his surety. Call police papers."
7. ' The above order clearly shows that no order with regard to forfeiture of the bond was made by the learend trial Judge before issuing notice to the surety. Again, the order passed on 7th June, 1983 indicates that even though the notice was served on the surety, he was called absent and filed no reply. The case was accordingly adjourned to 8th June, 1983 for orders. On the said date learned trial Judge passed an order which is material for the purpose of disposal of this application and is reproduced as under:-- "Order passed on the process returned served on the surety. Issue WOA against surety for his immovable property through D.C. Concerned for the recovery of Rs,25,000."
8. It would be noticed that as has been held in the aforementioned reported case the learned trial Judge has not followed the correct procedure as proved in section 524 (1), Cr.P.C. According to this provision of law, the learned trial Judge was first required to order forfeiture of the bond executed by the surety, giving reasons in support of such order. Thereafter, notice was to be issued to the surety, calling upon him to pay the amount of penalty or show cause why it should not be paid by him. In case the surety has furnished his explanation, the learend trial Judge after holding such summary inquiry as he considered necessary was free to come to any conclusion as to quantum of the amount of the forfeited bond that the surety was required to pay.
9. ' Since the procedure prescribed by law has not been observed by the learned trial Judge, the order passed by him against the surety with regard to attachment of his property cannot be supported. Even otherwise, immovable property could not be attached for recovery of the amount of the forfeited bond. As provided in subsection (2) of section 514, Cr.P.C. Only movable property is attachable for the aforesaid purpose.
10. ' Mr. Imam Bux Shaikh, the learned State counsel was constrained to concede that the order for attachment of the surety's immovable property was illegal and that he could not support the same.
11. ' Accordingly, the said order is hereby quashed and the case is remanded to the learned trial Judge with a direction that he should decide the case afresh in accordance with the requirements of section 145, Cr.P.C.