1. Criminal Revision No. 221 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No.222 of 1983 have been filed against the same order. Since both the petitions arise out of one order, they are being disposed of together.
2. Wariam son of Bakhsha and Shah Muhammad son of Lehna had stood sureties in the sum of rupees ten thousand each, for Mst. Bashiran for her release on bail, under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. She did not appear before the Court in spite of warrants of arrest issued against her on more than one occasion. Learned Additional Sessions Judge who was seized of the case, vide order dated 8-6-1982, directed issuance of notice to the sureties. In spite of a number of adjournments, both the sureties did not appear before the Court.
3. When the case came up before the Additional Sessions Judge on 22-3-1983, he recorded the following order: No separate proceedings under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of preparing a separate file were taken against the sureties (petitioners). The appearance of sureties was attached with the appearance of the accused in the main case. Warrants/summons etc. Against Mst. Bashiran and against the petitioners were issued vide same orders.
4. Apart from the order dated 22-3-1983, there is no order on the file, directing confiscation of the bail bonds. Order dated 22-3-1983, noted above, is the only order which can at the best be stretched to mean that the learned trial Court wanted to confiscate the surety bonds but that cannot be taken to have been passed in accordance with the correct legal procedure.
5. Learned counsel for the State submitt4d that he cannot put up the case at a higher level than observed that the order dated 22-3-1983 is the only order on the file which can be read to mean as an order of confiscation of bonds.
6. Benefits of doubts, whenever arise out of the impropriety of the orders, have to be given to the accused persons. In the situation that thus has arisen, no option is left but to set aside the order dated 22-3-1983. The petitions are therefore, accepted.
7. This, however, does not mean that the petitioners are absolved of their responsibility. The trial Court, seized of the matter, may proceed against the sureties /petitioners afresh in accordance with the procedure laid down.
8. I would like to add a note of dissatisfaction that the office not only disregarded the order passed by this Court for listing the petitions within three months but also sent for the records of the case without any order from the Court, and thus delayed trial of the case for almost three years. The incharge of the office may take action against the responsible officials, and may bring this fact to the notice of the learned Administrative Judge.
9. The records of the case shall be returned forthwith.