1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---We propose to dispose of abovementioned 2 petitions by this common Judgment as question of law and facts involved in the case are identical.
2. ' Criminal Petition No, 262-L of 1994 is filed by Muhammad Hussain who stood surety for accused Qaisar Mahmood in a case under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 by executing surety bond in the sum of Rs,10,000.
3. ' The said accused subsequently absconded, whereupon the trial Court after forfeiture of surety bond issued notice to the petitioner and finally ordered recovery of the sum of Rs,10,000 covered by the surety bond, from the petitioner. On appeal, the order of forfeiture of the amount was maintained by the High Court. However, the amount of surety bond forfeited, was reduced from Rs,10,000 to Rs,7,000.
4. ' In Criminal Petition No,263-L of 1994 the petitioner Bashir also stood surety for Qaisar Mahmood in a case under section 324/337, P.P.C. By executing surety bond in the sum of Rs,50,000. As the accused absconded in the case, the petitioner was given notice by the trial Court and thereafter the bond was forfeited and after forfeiture of the bond a further notice was served on the petitioner for recovery of the amount of bond. The order forfeiting the bond was challenged before the High Court and the learned Judge while maintaining forfeiture of the bond reduced the forfeited amount from Rs,50,000 to Rs,25,000..
5. ' In both the above cases, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have not derived any monetary bepefit for standing surety for the accused persons. Therefore, the Court should have taken lenient view for forfeiture of the bonds. In Criminal Petition No, 263-L of 1994 an additional contention has also been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issuance of the notice by the Court prior to forfeiture of the bond, has rendered the whole proceedings, for forfeiture of the bond, illegal.
6. ' Before considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners which is common in both the cases, namely, that the forfeiture of the amounts of Rs,7,000 in one case and Rs,25,000 in the other case, is on higher side, 1 would like to dispose of the additional contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No,263-L of 1994. The contention of the learned counsel is that in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C. The Court prior to issuance of notice for recovery of penalty under the bond should first forfeit the bond and then issue the notice. According to learned counsel for the petitioners Bashir Ahmed petitioner was served with the notice by the trial Court without first forfeiting the bond as required under section 514, Cr.P.C. The notice issued to the petitioner Bashir Ahmed by the Court prior to the forfeiture of bond has not been produced before us.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, admits that in the notice issued to the petitioner Bashir Ahmed prior to the forfeiture of bond, no demand was made for payment of the amount of bond and he was only asked to show cause. From the copy of order sheets produced by the petitioner, it is quite clear that the bond was forfeited by the Court on 11-3-1993 and notice requiring the petitioner to pay the forfeited amount of bond was issued thereafter. It is, therefore, quite clear that trial Court did not contravene or violate the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.0 while issuing show- cause notice to the petitioner to produce the accused in the case before forfeiture of the bond.
8. ' The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, which is common in both the cases, is that as the petitioners had not derived any monetary benefit by standing sureties in the cases, the trial Court should have taken a lenient view and should not have forfeited the entire amount of the bonds. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the learned counsel on the case Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47. It is true that in the above-cited case, this Court observed that the trial Court before forfeiting the bond had not made efforts to enquire into the relevant matter and, therefore, this Court after examining the facts of the case reduced the amount of forfeiture of bond from Rs,5,000 to Rs,1,000. However, no hard and fast rule in this regard could be laid down as the forfeiture of bond in each case would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the trial Court has ordered forfeiture of the entire amounts of surety bonds in both the cases. However, the High Court in revision substantially reduced the amounts by exercising discretion. No infirmity appears in the orders of the High Court so as to call for any further interference by this Court. There is no merit in these petitions which are, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused.