' The petitioner had stood surety for Zulfiqar Ali son of Bashir, an accused in case F.I.R. No,247/92, dated 25-12-1992 Police Station Zafarwal under section 384/364-A, P.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal vide impugned order dated 18-7-1994 has burdened the petitioner with Rs,20,000 as part of the surety amount. Hence this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Zulfiqar Ali accused was on bail and the petitioner had stood surety. The said accused absented himself on 14-2-1994 but the surety bond was not forfeited and the Sessions Judge, Narowal simply order the issuance of notice to the petitioner and on each of six subsequent dates of hearing no order for forfeiting the bond was passed by the trial Court. It was on 12-6-1994 that the petitioner was directed to file written reply to show cause as to why proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Be not carried out.
3. Relying on Ghulam Sarwar v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 274 Wilayat Hussain's case PLD 1967 Kar. 826 and Abdus Sattar's case (sic) PCr.LJ 424 the learned counsel submits that the impugned order suffered from material irregularity and was liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the State has taken me through the proceedings of the lower Court and has opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the surety appeared for the first time on 7-5- 1994 and he was ordered to produce the absenting accused and that the trial Court awarded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in producing the absenting accused in Court and took a very lenient view and that would not make the impugned order as illegal or passed with material irregularity.
5. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are applicable to the facts of the case. The first stage in the case for the Court was to order the forfeiture of the bond and record the grounds in support of proof of forfeiture and it was only thereafter that the petitioner was to be called upon to pay the penalty or to show cause.
6. The first two stages being absent in the present case, the impugned order dated 18-7-1994 suffers from illegality. The revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 18-7-1994 is set aside.