1. The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 11-11-1985 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereof the learned Additional Sessions Judge had directed confiscation of sum of Rs.20,000 each from the surety bonds filed by the petitioners in the sum of Rs.50,000 each in the case of Ghulam Muhammad accused on the latter having absented.
2. The revision petition was admitted only to consider the quantum of the amount of confiscation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits; that Ghulam Muhammad accused's act of absence from the Court was because of his having fallen ill. Learned counsel stated that the fact of medical certificate having been submitted by the accused alongwith the bail applications filed by him, is mentioned in the impugned order.
4. The next point urged by learned counsel, for mitigation, is that the accused after dismissal of pre- arrest bail application, had appeared, faced the trial and has been acquitted.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the day, the accused absented, the petitioners incurred the liability and that the facts mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioners do not make out any case for mitigation.
6. The facts of the matter is that the accused after having absented, was arrested on appearance and according to statement of learned counsel for the petitioners, which, I have no reason to doubt, has already been acquitted. The other important aspect for mitigation in this case is that the accused had given some explanation for his absence and in support thereof had submitted medical certificate also. Whether it was a genuine certificate or not, is, of course, a different matter but the fact remains that he was alive of the fact that he was supposed to attend, and in case of absence he was to give some explanation. This fact again, mitigates the liability of the sureties.