' This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23-2-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby he imposed the penalty on the petitioner by forfeiting the surety bond, executed by him to the extent of Rs,8,000.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Muhammad Rafiq Khan petitioner stood surety for one Mushtaq Ahmad accused, in a case F.I.R. No,7 dated 5-1-1987 under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. Registered against him and two others at Police Station 'Dila Deedar Singh, District Gujranwala, in consequence whereof, the said Mushtaq was released from the judicial lock-up.
Thereafter, the accused remained in attendance before the learned trial Court on all the dates of hearing but he absented himself from the Court at the time of announcement of the judgment, i,e.
On 10-4-1992. His surety the petitioner was directed to produce the said accused before the Court but he could not do so and the surety bond submitted by the petitioner to the extent of Rs,8,000 was forfeited. Hence, this revision petition.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not at fault because till the last date of hearing, the accused, namely, Mushtaq, remained present in Court and it was only at the time of announcement of the judgment that he escaped from the Court. It is submitted that the petitioner being an old man with poor resources at his command was unable to make payment of Rs,8,000 which in the circumstances of the case was exorbitant. Learned counsel further submits that the amount of Rs,2,000 which has already been paid by the petitioner may be treated as sufficient to meet the ends of justice. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not seriously oppose this petition by submitting that in view of the circumstance of the case the amount may be reduced to Rs,5,000.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the above-said submissions. I am of the view that the accused had been appearing before the Court till the last date of hearing; that the surety had not obtained any monetary gains from the said accused; that the surety is an old man with poor resources. In these circumstances, the penalty imposed on the petitioner appears to be excessive.
I, therefore, reduce the amount of penalty from Rs,8,000 to Rs,5,000, out of which, Rs,2,000 have already been paid, thus the remaining amount of Rs,3,000 shall be paid within two months.
' This petition stands disposed of accordingly.