This revision petition is directed against order dated 5-7-1989 whereby the learned Special Judge, Punjab Special Court, Dera Ghazi Khan, constituted under the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1987 imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000 on Amanullah petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C.
2. The relevant facts, in brief, which gave rise to the present revision petition are that on 19-6-1986 at Police Station Harrand, District Rajanpur, a case under section 302, P.P.C. Was registered against Muhammad Ali accused. On 21-12-1988, the learned Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, admitted the said accused to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety. Amanullah petitioner stood surety for the said accused who continued to appear before the Sessions Court during the pendency of the case in the said Court. In May, 1989, through a notification, the case was transferred to a Special Court for Speedy Trials. On 3-6-1989 when the case was laid before the learned transferee Court, the accused failed to enter appearance whereupon a notice was issued to the petitioner directing him to produce the accused in Court. He appeared in Court on 20-6-1989 but could not produce the accused. He was asked to explain as to why the bond should not be forfeited. He submitted his explanation which was not considered satisfactory. A fresh notice was issued to him directing him to explain as to why the amount of the bond i.e. Rs.1,00,000 should not be realized from him. The petitioner submitted his reply contesting liability to pay the said amount. However, after hearing the parties' counsel, the learned Special Court vide the impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000 on the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, he has come up in revision.
3. I have heard the parties' counsel and have also gone through the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently maintained that in the present case, the learned Special Court had no jurisdiction to impose any penalty under section 514, Cr.P.C. And that the only Court competent. To take such action was the Sessions Court before which the bail bond was submitted. In this connection he has relied on a number of authorities of various Courts. In Ballablidas Motiram Gupta v. Emperor AIR 1943 Bombay 178 it was held that where by a bond an accused binds himself to attend any particular Court but fails to appear in another Court to which the case is subsequently transferred, it could not be said, on the construction of the bond, that the accused had broken the condition of the bond. It was further held that where an accused executes a bond to appear before a particular Court, it is that Court alone which has jurisdiction to forfeit the bond and not the Court to which the case is subsequently transferred. This view was reiterated in Haji Abdul Ghani v. The State PLD 1970 Kar. 46, Muhammad v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ 46 (Karachi), Hassan v. The State 1990 ALD 455(2) and Haji Muhammad and 3 others v. The State 1986 PCr.]LJ 311 (Lahore).
5. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the above stated legal -position and.
Conceded that he could not find any case-law in which a contrary view was taken. 1, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that theimpugned order was without jurisdiction. The learned Special Court in the present case had no jurisdiction and therefore was not competent to make an order under section 514, Cr.P.C. The only Court which could take action -under the aforesaid provision of law against the petitioner was the Sessions Court. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order is. Set aside.,
6. A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned Sessions Court for initiating proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the law.
N.H.Q./M-433/L