' The petitioner stood surety for Nazir Ahmad, an accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,30/93 at Police Station Allah Abad, District Kasur, under section 6, Gambling Act, 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 an amount of Rs,20,000 out of the surety amount of Rs,30,000 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. Hence, the present criminal revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 provisional jurisdiction.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was not in a position to ensure the appearance of the said accused Nazir Ahmed before the learned trial Court as he had expired on 25-9-1994; and that therefore, the failure of the said accused Nazir Ahmed to appear before the learned trial Court or the failure of the petitioner to ensure his appearance before the said Court, was just not possible. To support his contention referred to the certified copy of the entry, regarding the death of the said accused Nazir Ahmed, duly entered into the register maintained at Union Council, Allah Abad, pertaining to the Village Allah Abad, Police Station Allah Abad, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur. Therefore, further contended that under such circumstances the petitioner, a poor illiterate villager, should not have been subjected to the penalty of forfeiture of the bonds submitted by him on behalf of the said deceased accused, and that the imposition of such a penalty, by the impugned orders, was oppressive, especially taking into consideration that the petitioner had stood surety for the said accused out of benevolence and humanitarian consideration and not for any monetary or personal gain.
4. The Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It has been taken notice of that the impugned order, dated 20-3- 1994 was passed by the learned trial Court without recording the explanation/defence version of the petitioner for his failure to ensure the presence of the accused Nazir Ahmed, before the Court; whereas the order, dated 18-9-1994 was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal, preferred against the said order, without taking into consideration that the accused was dead, and the fact of his death, as contended, there was not denied on behalf of the State; and that, therefore, there was no question of expecting the petitioner to produce the deceased accused Nazir Ahmed before the learned lower Court. Therefore, under the said circumstances, it is hereby observed that the impugned orders, dated 20-3-1994 and 18-9-1994, respectively, merit to be set aside.
5. Pursuant to what has been stated above, the present criminal revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned orders, dated 20-3-1994 and 18-9-1994 are hereby set aside. Disposed of.
Revision .