' The petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs,10,000 in the Court of Mr. Sher Zahcer Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, for Saqib Salcem accused in a case under .Section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The accused did not appear in Court on 11-7-1989 with the result that the bond submitted by the petitioner was forfeited. A notice was issued to him to show cause why the amount of the bond should not be levied. He put in a written reply to the show-cause notice, which was not accepted, and vide order, dated 16-9-1989 he was ordered to pay Rs,5,000 as penalty. Feeling aggrieved by this order he has filed this revision petition.
2. At the preliminary hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order only to the extent of quantum of penalty and the petition was admitted to consider this question only. The learned counsel submits that the accused had appeared in Court on the next day i,e, 12-7-1989, and the petitioner had stood surety merely out of benevolance, and not for any monetary gain, therefore, the penalty imposed on him is very severe. The learned counsel for the State conceds that the accused had appeared in the Court on the next day. He is also not in a position to controvert the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above facts, I also feel that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is very harsh. It has been emphasized time and again that a balance should be maintained between undue severity and undue leniency.
' In the circumstances, I reduce the penalty from Rs,5,000 to Rs,1,000. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Penalty reduced.