' A case under the Arms Ordinance was registered against one Manzoor son of Muhammad Inayat.
The said accused was allowed bail by the trial Court and the petitioner stood surety for his appearance. The accused Manzoor failed to appear in the Court and accordingly the petitioner, his surety, was proceeded against and the bond furnished by the petitioner was forfeited by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 25-7-1983. Vide the said order, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs, 2,000.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner took an appeal before the District Magistrate Toba Tek Singh, the same was also dismissed.
3. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant date the accused Manzoor had been arrested and was confined in judicial lock up and that is why the petitioner could not take any steps to produce the accused in the trial Court. To ascertain the truth of this fact, a report was called for from the Superintendent District Jail Jhang and the Superintendent District Jail, Muzaffargarh. The reports clearly show that on various dates of hearing the accused was confined in District Jail, Jhang.
4. It has been further contended before me that the order forfeiting the bond was passed ex parte and proper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to explain the absence of the accused.
5. The circumstances of the case merits interference by this Court because it was beyond the control of the petitioner to produce the accused before the trial Court. The order dated 25-7-1983 forfeiting the bond is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court to proceed afresh in accordance with law.