This criminal revision is directed against the order, dated 24-4-1989, by which Mr. Sher Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, after the confiscation of surety bonds of the petitioners has imposed on them the penalty of Rs.20,000 each on account of their failure to discharge their obligations to produce Muhammad Pervaiz accused before him
2. Muhammad Pervaiz was one of the accused in a murder case of Police Station Sangla Hill. He was granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 18-1-1988 on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura. The petitioners stood sureties for Muhammad Pervaiz accused and furnished surety bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 each to the satisfaction of the Duty Magistrate. Sheikhupura, on 19-1-1988 and the accused
3. After the commencement of trial in the Court of Mr. Sher Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, he appeared for a few dates of hearing and when the trial was still going on he suddenly disappeared. To compel his appearance the learned trial Judge cancelled his bail bonds and took proceedings for their confiscation and recovery of penalty from the sureties and ultimately passed the impugned order.
4. With reference of 1990 A L D 455(2) it is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not take proceedings for the confiscation of the surety bonds of the petitioners and for imposition of penalty on them because the bail bonds had been attested by the Duty Magistrate and only he was legally competent to take such proceedings. In the alternative, the learned counsel submits that in case the learned Additional Sessions Judge was competent to take proceedings for the confiscation of the surety bonds and imposition of penalty then the order passed by him was harsher and in view of the conduct of the petitioners, who have all along been searching for the absconding accused, a lenient view should have been taken.
Finally, he submits that he has consulted his clients and they are ready to pay Rs.12,000 each as penalty which is the maximum they can possibly afford.
5. It is argued on behalf of the State that the learned trial Judge has already given sufficient concession to the petitioners by imposing the penalty of Rs.20,000 each as against the surety bonds of Rs.30,000 each and further reduction of this amount would frustrate the ends of justice because Muhammad Pervaiz accused has absconded and his absconsion has ended the trial.
6. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they had furnished surety bonds with some ulterior motive or for some financial gain. They are relations of the accused and stood sureties for him on that account. The record shows that they have been making genuine efforts to locate the absconding accused but they have not succeeded so far. In these circumstances the amount of penalty as a result of confiscation of their surety bonds is reduced to Rs.12,000 each. They are said to have already furnished Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs.20,000 each and to discharge their liability they should deposit the reduced amount of penalty in the Government Treasury within a week, failing which the trial Court shall encash the Bank Guarantee.
N.H.Q./J-27/L Penalty amount reduced.