' The question raised in this revision application may be stated in a very few words, but the answer is by no means free from difficulty.
2. Applicant Mst. Sughra Bai had stood surety for accused Zahid Rasool involved in a gold smuggling case in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rs, one lac) in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, and she bound herself to produce the accused before the Court on every date of hearing till otherwise directed. On 11-1-1990 the accused absconded and the applicant made herself liable for an action under section 514, Cr.P.C. Consequently the bail bond was forfeited and a show-cause notice was issued to applicant in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C., who in reply thereof intimated the Court that the accused died at Lahore due to kidney failure. The learned Special Judge not being satisfied with this explanation and the documentary evidence filed in support thereof, directed the Investigating Officer to find out the correct position. The inquiry conducted in this behalf revealed that the accused was very much alive and the explanation furnished by the applicant was false which is clear from the following report dated 27-11-1990 submitted by the Investigating Officer.
' In compliance with the learned Judge's order I proceeded to Lahore on 20-11-1990 in order to inquire the death of accused Zahid Rasool (on bail) involved in a case of smuggling of 100 Tolas of gold from Dubai. In the first instance I proceeded to Vehari District to ascertain the address of Mr. Tariq Mehboob son of Maqsood Alam the person who reported the death of accused Zahid Rasool in the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore. Previously Lahore Customs had informed that the National Identity Card No, 349-56-000213 of the reporter pertains to Vehari District, but when I approached Assistant Director Registration Organization Vehari, it was revealed that the said Zone i,e. 349 of N.I.D. Is lying reserved and has not yet been allotted to any District in Pakistan. This goes to prove that the N.I.D. Card No,349-56-000213 of the reporter mentioned in the death papers is fake and the reporter wants to conceal his identity. A letter was also got issued by Assistant Director, Vehari in this respect.
' Then proceeded to Lahore and obtained photo copy of the Registration Form of Zahid Rasool which led to the issuance of National Identity Card No,278-55-017794 of accused Zahid Rasool from where it was revealed that the accused resides at H.No, H-943, Bazar Namadgran, Androon Akbari Gate, Lahore. On verification it was found that the accused shifted to some other place some ten years ' back. Certificate to this effect has also been issued by the Councillor of the said area. From it was also revealed that the accused is an employee of Pakistan Industrial Gases, Lahore. This aspect has also been investigated and it was revealed that the accused Zahid Rasool had been working there some 17 years back and his whereabouts are not known to any of the employees of the said firm.
' I also contacted Messrs King Travel, Davis Road, Lahore from where the conjunction Ticket for the sector LHE-KHI-DXB-KHI-LHE were issued in the year 1988, for the accused Zahid Rasool but they disclosed that the said tickets were issued to Messrs Sky Star who further handed over these tickets to Messrs Sky King Alflah, Lahore for their client Zahid Rasool.
' The owner of Messrs Sky King Mr. Riaz on enquiry disclosed that he purchased these tickets for one of his client Zahid Rasool through Messrs Sky Star. Accused Zahid Rasool had approached Messrs Sky King through one Haji Azmat whose whereabouts are not known to him now. He further disclosed that the said Zahid Rasool had been purchasing tickets from him later and last time he visited his travel agency in July, 1990 for getting refund of a newly-issued ticket which he refused to him for certain reasons. Mr. Riaz also issued a certificate to this effect. This certificate proves that Zahid Rasool is not dead but alive because the death certificate indicates the date of death as 9-1- 1990 whereas the accused Zahid Rasool visited Mr. Riaz of Messrs Sky King in July, 1990 much after his so-called death.
' At the time of filing bail application a certificate was produced by the party duly signed by the Councillor, Ward No,I Shandra, Lahore in which the address of the accused's parents was given as H.No,11 Gali No,3, Kamran Park Shandra, Lahore. The Councillor Haji Amanat Ali was also contacted who stated that he signed the Zakat Form of the accused's father Mr. Abdul Qadir in good faith without verifying their address, and whether they were residing in the vicinity of Shandra or not.
' In view of the aforesaid there are enough reasons to believe that the accused Zahid Rasool is alive and has manipulated his death to avoid subsequent proceedings in the case and has gone underground and t here is no likelihood of his arrest in the near future. Accused Zahid Rasool has managed death certificate of someone else in his name."
4. Obviously, therefore, an attempt was made to mislead the Court by producing fictitious and forged documents. It was in these circumstances that the learned Special Judge forfeited the entire amount of the bail bond as penalty and directed the applicant to deposit the said amount within ten days.
' This order, dated 20-11-1991 is the subject-matter of the present revision application filed under section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969.
4. I have heard Mrs. Navin Merchant, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Fariduddin, learned counsel for State. The latter has supported the impugned order.
5. It is contended on behalf o. The applicant that she being a housewife had stood surety for accused Zahid Rasool who was friend of her husband through mere benevolence. If this statement is taken to be true then the husband of the applicant should have known that accused Zahid Rasool was alive and an attempt to mislead the Court was made by filing forged death certificate on his behalf. The question was in fact considered by learned Special Judge who disposed of the same in the following words:-- "It has been submitted on behalf of applicant, that she acted merely as benevolence and had not gained any monetary benefit. Also, it has been argued, that report of the I.O. Is vague and cannot be relied upon. Above contentions have got no force. Statement of the Investigation Officer was recorded by this Court on oath, on 27-11-1990 and there is no reason to doubt his testimony. The accused was a stranger for applicant and for a stranger a risk of this magnitude is not taken, specially when he is involved in smuggling case. By offering surety, the applicant, in fact, has facilitated the accused to escape the punishment and the minimum punishment for this offence is 5 years. Breach of the bond is evident. The applicant has failed to produce the accused in Court as per terms of the surety bond."
6. Mrs. Navin Merchant, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon the case of Dildar and another v. The State reported in PLD 1963 SC 47, Allah Dad v. The State reported in 1981 P Cr. L J 1184, and Haitam v. The State and others, reported in 1987 MLD 977, in an attempt to show that a balance is to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity. The facts of all the above- reported cases are, however, distinguishable. The rule laid down by this Court in the cases of Iftikhar Ahmad v. The State reported in 1989 P Cr. L J 1918, and Dr. Nizamuddin Memon v. The State reported in 1992 P Cr. L J 765, is fully attracted to the facts of the present case. In fact the applicant had tried to misguide the Court by pleading that the accused for whom she had stood surety was dead. Under these circumstances she is not entitled to any leniency.
7. No case for interference is made out and the revision application is accordingly dismissed.