Accused Badi-uz-Zaman, an Indian national who was facing trial on the charge of smuggling of goods valued at Rs.15,18,000 an offence punishable under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, was granted bail by this Court in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Applicant Dr. Nizamuddin stood surety for the said accused and he bound himself in the aforesaid amount to produce him before the trial Court on every date of hearing till otherwise directed. The accused, however, absconded on 7-6-1988 and consequently his bail bond was forfeited, and a notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to applicant to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount may not be recovered from him. The applicant submitted his explanation wherein he prayed for lenient action. The learned Special Judge considered his explanation and remitted an amount of Rs.1,00,000 out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,00,000. The applicant was further directed to deposit the amount of Rs.4,00,000 (Rupees four lacs) within one week. This order, dated 29-11-1990 is the subject-matter of this revision application filed under section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Rafique Khanzada, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Jalaluddin Baloch, learned counsel for the State. The letter has supported the impugned order.
3. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he had stood surety for accused due to benevolence as brother of accused who is also a doctor like him b had persuaded him to do so and consequently he is entitled to more leniency. There is, however, nothing on record to substantiate it. This submission was also considered by the learned Special Judge who rejected it for the following reasons:-- "The accused was a perfect stranger for applicant and for such a person normally risk of this magnitude is not taken. The applicant by standing surety, in fact, provided an opportunity to accused to run away. There is nothing on record to suggest, that he stood surety on humanitarian ground. Breach of bond is evident and it stands forfeited."
4. The only other question that falls for determination is whether the return of C.D.C./A.Q.A.M.A.
Documents to accused on 9-1-1988, by the trial Court is relevant to the point in issue. The perusal of the impugned order shows that these documents were returned to accused for getting his accounts settled with the shipping company and after obtaining these documents the accused continued to attend Court till 7-6-1988, when he jumped bail. The surety is responsible for the appearance of the persons for whom he stands surety before the Court, and although there is no law by which a surety can have control over the accused, yet the surety in whose custody the accused is delivered by the Court is bound to produce him before the Court on every date of hearing till otherwise directed. As observed by this Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmed v. The State reported in 1989 P Cr. L J 1918, there are several considerations which deter an accused from running away from justice and risk p of financial loss is one of them, and if this risk of monetary loss is made easier then there will no possibility to secure the presence of accused persons involved in cases of this nature'.
5. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Khanzada, learned counsel for applicant has touchingly prayed for more leniency, but for the reasons mentioned above, I am not inclined to show any more leniency, to him.
6. The revision application has got no merits andis accordingly dismissed.