' The petitioner stood surety in the amount of Rs,20,000 to ensure the presence of the accused Amjad Javed in a case pending against him in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujar Khan. The accused did not appear in the Court below on 10-12-1996, 22-12-1996, 20-1-1997 and 17-2-1997 respectively for which a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. Being his surety. It was directed in the show-cause notice that since the accused has absented and has not been produced in the Court by him, therefore, why the surety bond be not forfeited and the penalty be inflicted in accordance with the provisions contained in the aforesaid section.
2. The petitioner filed a reply to the show-cause notice in which he took up the plea that since the accused had already been arrested on 26-2-1997, therefore, he was absolved of his surety bond and was not responsible for the absence of the accused, on the dates prior to the date of his arrest.
After putting in the reply, the petitioner i,e,, the surety absented which invited the present order, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge taking lenient view reduced the amount of penalty to Rs,15,000 from Rs,20,000 as mentioned in the surety bond.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the accused was arrested, therefore, liability of the petitioner had ceased, in respect of the surety bond given by him for his appearance in the Court. However, it was conceded that the accused had not appeared prior to his arrest in the Court on the dates mentioned above.
4. At that time, the surety bond was admittedly in existence and it was the duty of the surety to produce the accused in the Court on those dates. Having failed to discharge that duty and without appearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujar Khan to contest the show-cause notice except by putting in a reply that as the accused was arrested, therefore, he stood absolved of his surety bond would be hardly a correct approach to face the Court proceedings which could result into pecuniary penalty, or in the absence of its payment might lead to an imprisonment in jail.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me that any illegality, patent or latent, had been committed by the learned Court below while making the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court on rev I s ional jurisdiction.
6. The petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.