Nadir Khan, petitioner, verified the bonds in the sum of Rs.15,000 executed by Musafir Khan and Abdul Maboob sureties in a case against one Abdullah under sections 379, 377 and 411, P.P.C. The accused failed to appear before the trial Court and in consequence the bonds were forfeited and the sureties were called upon to pay the amount or show cause why it should not be paid. The evidence that was recorded revealed that neither of the sureties, namely, Musafir and Abdul Maboob were possessed of any landed property. Likewise Nadir Khan was also proved to have owned some landed property at the time of verifying the two sureties but when bonds of sureties were forfeited he was also no more owner of any landed property. The bonds Exh.CA. Furnished by the sureties further demonstrated that Malik Nadir Khan, petitioner, had verified that they were owners of landed property. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was seized of the case, forfeited the bonds and then issued notice to the petitioner and directed him `to pay the said amount or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year'.
2. Mr. M. Asif, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the authority of Ghulam Qadir v. Sarkar PLD 1972 Azad J&K 42 contended that section 499 Cr.P.C. Which deals with furnishing of bonds refers only to sureties taking responsibility for the appearance of the accused in accordance with the terms of the said bonds executed by them and that the section does not, therefore cover a person like the petitioner who obviously is not a surety within the contemplation of the aforesaid section. According to him, in the precedent case of Ghulam Qadir it has also been held that the language of'; he Forms provided for in Schedule V to the Code of Criminal Procedure does not Spell out any provision for verification.
3. Mr. Shahabuddin Burq, the learned counsel .For the State, has Opposed this revision petition and submitted that the petitioner having wrongly verified that fact knowing full well that the sureties who furnished bonds for the accused were not possessed of any property to pay the amount in case of forfeiture and, therefore, he was also like the surties liable to pay the amount of bonds.
4. In Ghulam Qadir's case which is on all fours, Khawaja Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, J., as his Lordship then was furnished the following answer to the question as to whether, apart from other implications, the verification can be treated as a bond enforceable under section 514, Cr.P.C.:-- "It seems to me that as the said verification is not provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not a bond executed under the Code and hence does not attract the application of section 514, Cr.P.C."
Respectfully subscribing to the view taken in the case of Ghulam Qadir, I am of the considered opinion that the law contemplates a personal bond on behalf of the `surety' for the appearance of accused' in a Court which would be seized of the criminal case against him. It is the surety and not the verifier of his person nor the verifier of his means to pay the amount of the bond who is liable to pay the forfeited amount of bond. He may be liable for A any offence for wrong verification of the capacity of the surety furnishing bond under section 514, Cr.P.C. But such verifier of the bond does not seem to be covered by that section so as to be made liable to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of bond which he-verified.
5. For the foregoing reasons, while accepting the revision petition, I set aside the order of forfeiture and sentence of his imprisonment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar on 30-5-1991. The petitioner shall be set free immediately if he. Is not undergoing imprisonment or jail custody in any other case. But this order would not operate to absolve the petitioner from any other offence which he may have committed by wrong. Verification of the bonds executed by the sureties aforesaid. The learned Additional Sessions Judge may, if he deems appropriate, initiate proceedings against the petitioner for, any offence which the petitioner might have committed under any law for the time being in force.