1. ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Facts giving rise to this leave petition are that the petitioners herein stood surety for Muhammad Aslam alias Achhu, accused in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat vide F.I.R. No.71 dated 5-2-1992, in which case, the accused was allowed interim bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with to sureties, each in the like amount.
3. Each of the petitioner b stood surety for the accused in the said amount. The accused thereafter, absented/absconded and was declared proclaimed offender. Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Gujranwala Division, gave a notice to both the petitioners on 20-12-1993 to show cause as to why the amount of their surety bonds be not forfeited to the State. Petitioners in their reply to the show-cause notice stated that with their efforts, the accused had already been apprehended and produced in Court. Learned Trial Judge was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioners and observed that they had made no contribution whatsoever towards the arrest of the accused who, it was said, was arrested from Lahore by Sialkot Police.
4. Learned Trial Judge, therefore, by order dated 2-1-1994 proceeded to make the order of forfeiture of surety bonds and imposed the penalty of Rs.40,000 on each of the petitioners which they were directed to deposit within seven days. Petitioners assailed this order in revision but without any success as the same has been dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide his Order dated 15-1-1994 holding that the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity. Petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate-General who has appeared on Court notice. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused having been already arrested and produced in Court, the impugned order imposing the penalty of Rs.40,000 on each petitioner was extremely harsh. Further grievance made by the learned counsel is that it has not been considered by the Courts below that by standing sureties, petitioners did not gain anything nor were they privy to the absconscion of the accused. In the submission of the learned counsel, the learned Trial Court when ordering the forfeiture of the bonds did not keep the balance between undue leniency and undue severity, the principle highlighted in the case of Dildar v. State reported in PLD 1963 SC 47. Learned Additional Advocate-- General has not controverted the factual position afore-noted. In the circumstances, while we hold that the petitioners have forfeited their bonds, we are inclined to take the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the interests of justice would be amply served and the petitioners adequately punished by imposing on each of them penalty of Rs.10,000. This petition is accordingly converted into an appeal which is hereby allowed to the extent that the penalty of Rs.40,000 imposed by the Trial Court on each petitioner is reduced to Rs.10,000. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioners have already deposited the amount of penalty imposed by the Trial Court. If that is so, they can seek refund of balance amount.
5. N.H.Q./M-3306/SPenalty reduced.