1. ' Petitioner through this criminal revision has challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock dated 3-6-1996 dismissing his appeal as being not maintainable.
2. ' Facts briefly for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner stood surety for one Mst.
3. Mali Pari who was involved in a case emanated out of F.I.R. No,1084 recorded on 15-12-1993 at Police Station Attock Khurd. Said Mah Pari became absent from the Court whereupon her bail bonds were confiscated and petitioner asked to show cause, why surety amount be not recovered from him.
4. The petitioner failed to produce the accused lady whereupon the trial Magistrate issued warrants of attachment for the recovery of penalty of Rs,50,000. Since the warrants could not be executed for want of the financial position of the petitioner as such the trial Magistrate sent him to civil prison for six months, the maximum period provided by section 514(4); Cr.P.C. Aggrieved with this order the petitioner filed an appeal on 23-4-1996. The Additional Sessions Judge, Attock dismissed the same as being not maintainable. Hence this revision petition.
5. ' I have heard the petitioner as well as learned Law Officer. Both of them are unison on the issue that the Additional Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in not treating the same as revision petition when he himself has held so in the impugned order itself.
6. ' I have considered the contentions and have gone through the impugned order. I have noticed that in the impugned order the Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance upon a case reported in 1986 PCr.LJ 2028 wrongly mentioned 1988 PCr.LJ 2028 in the impugned order titled "Muhammad Jan v. The State" has reproduced the following observations of the learned Judge which are as under:-- - "Sections 410 and 514(2)---Surety Bond, forfeiture of---Appeal against forfeiture order, held, was not competent but was allowed to be treated as revision."
7. However, after observing the same instead of converting the appeal to a revision petition, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the same as being not maintainable through impugned order dated 3-6-1996. This act on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exposed the petitioner not only to extra expense but also to mental agony. It is consistent policy of the superior Courts that the matter be decided on merits and technical knock-out shall be sparingly as it amounts to denial of justice. Resultantly this revision petition is accepted and the case is remitted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock who shall decide the same within one week of the receipt of this order. Office is directed to transmit this order to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for compliance.