' One Bangal son of Aulad Ali was arrested in a murder case vide F.I.R. No, 59 of 1985 relating to Police Station Bungla Ichha. He was allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties. Chuhar son of Ramzan and Challu son of Laloo, both petitioners herein allegedly stood surety for the appearance of said Bangal accused and executed surety bonds, accordingly. On 7-4-1987 Bangal failed to appear in Court, whereupon their surety bonds were forfeited vide impugned order, dated 5-2-1989 and it was directed that District Collector, Rajanpur, shall attach the immovable property of the petitioners and if they would not pay the surety amount within three days then their attached property shall be sold. Feeling aggrieved thereby the instant revision has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that procedure laid down in section 514, Cr.P.C. For forfeiting the surety bond. And recovery of the surety amount has not been adhered to before passing the impugned order. He has emphasized that the petitioners are not liable to pay anything since the original surety bonds purported to have been executed by them do not contain any amount. I have seen the origianl bail bonds of the petitioners. No amount is mentioned therein. The column meant for it is blank. Learned AA-G. When confronted with this situation found it difficult to rebut it. It is lamentable that the Presiding Officer who accepted the surety bonds failed to exercise the least care to verify the contents before accepting the same. In the circumstances I have no option but to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. It is, however, directed that Additional Registrar of this Court shall ask concerned Presiding Officer to explain for the omission mentioned above.