' Nur Samand son of Ahmad Din had stood surety in the sum of Rs,20,000/- for Muhammad Akbar son of Muhammad Sadiq on his having been granted bail for offences under Section 302/34/109, P.P.C. n case F.I.R. No, 81 dated 29-4-1982, Police Station Chuchak. The accused did not appear in the Court on 4-2-1985. He absented on the next three dates as well, i.e, 21-2-1985, 11-3-1985 and 24- 3-1985.
2. On service of notice issued by learned Additional Sessions fudge, Okara, Nur Samand appeared in the Court on 24-3-1985. He was issued a notice to show cause why the surety bond filed by. Him be not confiscated because of absence of Muhammad Akbar accused. )n the next date of hearing, i.e, 11-4-1985, Nur Samand produced Nuhammad Akbar in the Court. He was arrested and sent to jail. On he same date, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara directed the confiscation of a sum of Rs,10,000/- out of the surety bond of Nur Samand.
3. Nur Samand has challenged the order of learned Additional sessions Judge by way of revision petition.
4. As is apparent from the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner having received notice, had appeared on !4-3-1985 and on the next date succeeded in producing the accused. Although technically the default had been committed on the absence the accused on the very first date, but the sense of responsibility shown by the petitioner by producing the accused on a notice having been served upon him, demanded a more considerate treatment and a ?Nient view.
' Keeping in view the prompt sense of responsibility shown by the petitioner, I feel that the order of confiscation of a sum of is Rs,10,000/- out of the surety bond, is not only severe but harsh also. In the circumstances, the order of confiscation of a sum of s.10,000/- is altered to that of Rs,500/- (Rs, five hundred only the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within 15 days, learned Additional Sessions Judge shall take legal steps to recover the same.