The petitioner stood surety for one Muhammad Siddique, an accused in a case registered vide F.I.R.
No.501 of 1992 at Police Station, Kanganpur, but on the failure of the said accused to appear on the date fixed for hearing, the learned trial Court cancelled his bail, forfeited surety bonds and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000 out of the surety amount of Rs.50,000 as penalty, vide order, dated 20-3-1994 and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the District Magistrate, Kasur, vide order, dated 18-9-1994. Hencethe present criminal revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the State were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. The learned counsel for the State submitted that no illegality or material irregularity can be pointed out in the impugned order, therefore, no interference therewith is called for under the revisional jurisdiction.
3. However, it has been taken notice of that the petitioner, a poor person, had stood surety for the accused not for any monetary or personal gain, but out of benevolence and humanitarian consideration. It has been further taken notice of, as pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, that he had duly informed the Court about the address of the accused in question, as stated in the written application, submitted before the learned trial Court on 21-2-1994 i.e. Before the impugned order of forfeiture dated 20-3-1994 was passed and as such, the Court is constrained to observe that the petitioner had established his bona fides regarding the honest efforts that he was making for the production of the accused, and it is further taken notice of that it has been explicitly stated in the said application that the said accused had refused to appear before the Court, and. To ensure his production before the Court, police help should be provided to him. A photostat copy of the said application, produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, duly signed by him, is directed to be placed on the record. As the said application in-fact, amounts to a prayer on behalf of the- petitioner for, the discharge of his liability in respect of the production/non-production of the accused and for the consequential discharge of the bail bonds submitted by him. Therefore, it is further observed that, under such circumstances, the petitioner. An illiterate and rustic tenant, should not have been subjected to the penalty in question, in accordance with the time honoured principles of equity, fairness an(; natural justice the principles that are to be read as part of every legal enactment as held by the Honourable superior Courts, time and again; and, observance whereof is incumbent upon a Court while discharging its judicial functions generally, but especially while penalties have to be imposed for the failure of fulfilling an undertaking given to the said Court, that is entirely in its discretion. By allowing maximum allowance for the bona fides duly established by thel explanation submitted for any failure thus occasioned.
4. Therefore, pursuant to the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders dated 20-3-1994 and B 18-9-1994, passed by the learned lower Courts, are hereby set aside.