1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the sureties for the appearance of the accused in a case of Narcotics against the dismissal of their Revision by the High Court regarding forfeiture and recovery of the surety amount, which however was reduced from Rs, 50,000 each to Rs,40,000 each.
2. ' Learned counsel has taken us through the bail-surety bonds and has argued that the words "URDU TEXT" written in the surety bonds with respect to the responsibility of joint sureties mean that all of them shall jointly be responsible to pay the surety amount.
3. After some arguments the learned counsel could not press the point any further when he discovered that the word "URDU TEXT" when translated into English means severally. And if so construed each would be separately responsible for the forfeiture and the payment of the surety amount independently of the other surety's liability. They will also be jointly liable for this amount.
4. ' He, next relying on the case of Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 47), contended that the petitioners deserve leniency. The learned Judge in the High Court gave some benefit to the petitioners by reducing the amount from Rs, 50,000 each to Rs, 40,000 each. Beyond that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to them.
5. Leave to appeal, accordingly is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.