Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.- The petitioner had stood surety for a sum of Rs. 1,00.000/- for Nadecm Niaz on his being granted interim bail by the Additional Sesions Judge, in a case under Sec. 302/34 P.P.C. Nadeem- Niaz did not appear on the appointed date. His presence could not be procured in spite of coercive methods used by the Court and the efforts made by the petitioner.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge aIter due notice iorfited the surety bond and confiscated a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, of the surety bond. The order has been challenged through this revision petition.
2. At the time of admission, learned counsel for the petitioner, after having argued at some length decided not to press the petition on merits and prayed for reduction in the confiscated amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the practice normally followed by the Courts is to confiscate one-fifth of the total amount and rarely one-fourth too. In this connection he has referred to certain authorities as well.
4. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the request. He has submitted that if at all some leniency is to be shown, the confiscated amount suould not be less than one-fourth.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment and considered background of the case as well. I feel, confiscation of a sum of Rs. Twentyfive thousand (Rs.25,000/-) from the surety bond of the petitioner will meet the ends of justice in this case. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge of forfeiture of surety bond is maintained but the direction with regard to confisaction of sum of Rs.
50,000/- is aItered to sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has already been deposited.
If that be so, the extra amount be refunded to the petitioner.