1. ' Applicant Allah Bachayo had stood surety on 2-12-1990 for release of accused Sikander on bail in sum of Rs,20,000 in Sessions Case No,55 of 1992 in Court of the Senior Civil Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Shandadpur. Accused Sikandar attended the trial Court for a few dates of hearing and then he stopped attending the Court. The trial Court gave to the surety time to produce accused Sikandar. Thereafter the case was transferred to Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shandadpur, who on 14-7-1992, which was first date of hearing, passed the impugned order which reads as below: "Six months have passed. Surety Allah Bachayo is getting time for producing the accused. Sufficient opportunity has been afforded to surety/applicant for producing the accused but he has failed to produce the accused. As such bail bond is forfeited, however, looking into the position of surety, amount of bail bond is reduced to Rs,10,000 and he is directed to deposit this amount till 10-8-1992."
2. ' Hence this revision application.
3. ' Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari, learned AA.-G. for State did not support the impugned order. He frankly conceded that the impugned order was not consistent with the provisions contained in section 514 of Cr.P.C.
4. ' Subsection (1) of section 514, Cr.P.C. reads as below:-- 'Procedure on forfeiture of bond.---(1) Wherever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid."
5. 'In view of aforesaid provisions the Additional Sessions Judge, Shandadpur on being satisfied that the bail bond executed by the applicant for release of accused Sikandar had been proved to have been forfeited, should have recorded grounds of such proof and then should have issued notice to the surety calling upon him to pay the penalty or show cause, as to why it should not be paid.
6. ' The provisions contained in section 514, Cr.P.C. have been subject to interpretation by various superior Courts in the country and beyond the country. In the case of Wilayat Hussain v. State PLD 1967 Kar. 826 it was held that three stages are contemplated for a proceeding under section 514, Cr.P.C. Those are:
(i) a declaration of forfeiture, (ii) the order for payment or to show cause and (iii) steps taken for recovery of the amount. It was further held in the same case that the declaration of forfeiture must be proved upon cogent grounds establishing to the satisfaction of the Court, that the forfeiture has taken place, and recording of such grounds by the Court. The words "whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court" have been interpreted in said case to mean that such satisfaction must be grounded upon some cogent evidence. In the case of Shaukat Ali and another v. State 1980 PCr.LJ 718 too the provisions contained in section 514, Cr.P.C. came to be interpreted. It was held that section 514, Cr.P.C. indicates that three steps are to be taken namely (i) it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the bond has been forfeited, whereupon the Court is to record the grounds of such proof, (ii) the Court on being satisfied as aforesaid, may call upon the person hound by such bond to pay penalty thereof or show cause why it should not be paid and (iii) if sufficient cause is not shown and penalty is not paid the Court may proceed to recover the amount so forfeited by issuing a warrant for attachment and sale of the movable property belonging to such person or his estate.
7. ' Even if the trial Court had given 6 months' period to surety Allah Bachayo for his producing accused Sikandar, that would not mean that normal procedure was not to be adhered to. The surety could not be ordered to deposit the amount of the bail bond without issue of notice under section 514(1) of Cr.P.C. and before his being given a hearing for showing cause as to why he should not be ordered to pay the amount of the bond. Moreover the Court has to record the grounds of the proof, on the basis of which it has arrived at the conclusion that the bail bond has been forfeited.
8. In the circumstances the impugned order dated 14-7-1992 is set aside and this revision application stands accepted. This order would not preclude the trial Judge from proceeding afresh against surety Allah Bachayo in accordance with the provisions contained in section 514, Cr.P.C.