MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J---This appeal by Mir Barkat Ali and Retired Subedar Abdul Majeed calls in question the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 17-11-1991 whereby their revision petition against the order of the learned. Sessions Judge, Quetta dated 21-9-1991, forfeiting their surety bonds and directing them to deposit Rs.1,00,000 each, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants stood sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Dalbandin for appearance of one Abdul Qayyum who was accused of an offence under section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance. On the dates of hearing he remained before the Court and was ultimately convicted of the said offence and sentenced to a fine of Rs.7,000 only. Later on the Baluchistan High Court in Suo Motu reference set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding it to be illegal as the minimum sentence provided for the 'offence in question was three years' imprisonment. The case was remanded to the learned Sessions Judge, Quetta for trial according to law vide order dated 12-9-1990. The learned Sessions Judge issued process to aforementioned Abdul Qayyum for appearance before him but, he was reported to have gone to Afghanistan and, therefore, remained un-served. He accordingly issued notice under section 514-A of the Cr.P.C. To the appellants and after hearing them forfeited their bonds and directed them to deposit the surety amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that according to the terms of the bail bonds the appellants had undertaken to produce the accused in the Court of Assistant Commissioner/SDM, Dalbandin, only and before no other Court, therefore, they were not liable in any manner for his non-appearance' in the Sessions Court. He submits that the Courts below have completely ignored the terms of bail bonds and arrived at conclusion which on the face of it is unsustainable. He further submits that according to the Court below the Assistant Commissioner/SDM, Delbandin had no jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, any bail bond submitted before him was of no consequence and could not be enforced. The learned Advocate-General is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and finds himself unable to support the impugned orders.
In the circumstances this appeal is allowed and the impugned orders of the Courts below referred to above are set aside.