' Through this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16-7-1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat whereby he ordered the petitioner to pay Rs,10,000 in the State Treasury within the span of 15 days and in default his movable property of the same was ordered to be attached and disposed of in the proceedings taken under section 514, Cr.P.C. For not producing Irshad Hussain accused in his Court.
2. A case under section 392/397, P.P.C. Was registered with Police Station, Kharian vide F.I.R. No,243, dated 8-7-1988 against Irshad Hussain and others who is the nephew and son-in-law of the petitioner. The accused was released on bail by the Special Speedy Court No,9 at Gujranwala in the sum of Rs,25,000 with one surety the like amount. The petitioner stood surety for said Irshad Hussain accused and submitted the bail bond on his behalf.
3. Later on the Speedy Trial Courts were abolished and the case No,243/88, dated 8-7-1988 of Police Station, Kharian was transferred to the file of Mr. Guishad Hussain Alvi, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat and Irshad Hussain accused entered his appearance in that Court and he appeared for two dates of hearing but subsequently he absconded. As a result thereof the bail bonds of Irshad Hussain accused were forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants for his arrest were issued which remained unserved with the report that the accused had screened himself, so thereafter proclamation as provided under section 87, Cr.P.C. Was issued but even then the accused did not turn up in that Court.
4. In view of the above-said proceedings, notice as required under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was given to Sardar Khan, the present petitioner, who had-stood surety for the accused. Upon the appearance, the petitioner filed a reply to the notice wherein he admitted that he stood surety for the accused and made a request for pardon. After hearing the parties the learned trial Court passed the order as discussed above.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that non-appearance of the accused Irshad Hussain in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not intentional but due to the fact that four persons of one Muhammad Mahfooz friend of the accused had been murdered and that case was pending in the same Court, so he was not appearing in the Court for fear of his life.
6. Learned counsel, at the very outset, contended that the learned trial Court could not proceed under section 514, Cr.P.C. To forfeit the bond as the same was for appearance of the accused before the Special Speedy Trial Court and not before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and only the Speedy Trial Court alone was competent to initiate proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C.
And therefore, the entire proceedings held by the learned trial Court were illegal and without jurisdiction. He further argued that on 16-6-1990, the petitioner made a detailed application before the learned trial Court apprising the actual position that it had not become within the control of the petitioner to produce the accused in the Court but in spite of that, ordered the petitioner to pay Rs,10,000 out of the surety amount in the State Treasury. Lastly it was argued that the accused Irshad Hussain was immediately arrested after he was convicted by the Court and his sentence has been set aside by this Court in the main case.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and also gone through the record. I am of the view that the facts of the case cited by the learned counsel reported as Ashiq All and another v. The State 1991 P Cr. L J 681 are not identical to this case and, therefore, are not applicable. In the reported case the accused had been admitted to interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge directing him to execute the bail bond before the Ilaqa Magistrate but when on the next date of hearing the accused did not appear a direction was given to the Ilaqa Magistrate to take proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. And there it was held that the bail bond in that case was for the appearance of the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the interim to him and not before the Magistrate so the proceedings taken under section 514, Cr.P.C. Were legal.
8. In this case the accused Irshad Hussain had been released on bail by the learned Speedy Trial Court but that Court had been abolished and the case was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge where Irshad Hussain accused appeared twice and subsequently absented and did not appear before that Court, although the proceedings under section 87, Cr.P.C.
Was taken against him. The facts of this case in my humble view are not identical to the case cited as before. I find that the proceedings taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 514, Cr.P.C. Were legal and he fulfilled all the formalities before imposing the penalty of Rs,10,000.
Notice was given to the surety and a reasonable time was given to him to produce him in the Court. It may be mentioned here that as per Annexure 'B' copy of the application which was made by the surety in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Irshad Hussain accused was aware of the proceedings taken against the surety but even then he was not appearing in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
9. I have considered the matter carefully and I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 514, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced as follows:- "(1) Whenever 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 1st Class, ' Or when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction such Court, ' That such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the ground of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it would not be paid.
(2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for attachment and sale of the movable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead."
A plain reading of the provision of law reproduced above will show that when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code was taken, or of the Court of a Magistrate of the 1st Class then that Court can proceed under section 514, Cr.P.C. To forfeit the bond. In this case the Speedy Trial Court was no more in existence and under the law that has been substituted with the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, the entire proceedings held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 514, Cr.P.C. Were legal and with jurisdiction.
10. Pursuant to the above discussion, this revision petition has no force and the same is rejected.
11. In this case the petitioner did not stand surety for any monetary gain but out of his being an uncle and father-in-law of the accused, so it cannot said that the petitioner was not aware of the activities of the accused in the case. The petitioner being an old man of 73 years of age so I am of the view that in any rate the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is too excessive, so I reduce the same from Rs,10,000 to Rs,5,000.
Penalty reduced.