This order will dispose of this petition as well as connected Criminal Revision No.116/96 as both of them involve similar points.
2. Petitioners in both the petitions stood surety in the sum of Rs.40,000 each in pre-arrest bail petitions moved by Abdul Sattar Khan and Muhammad Iqbal Khan respectively. The petitioners in both the bail petitions absented whereupon their bail petitions were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge Layyah vide his order dated 11-3-1996. Notices were issued to the sureties who are petitioners in both these petitions before this Court. Sureties were served with notices as to why bail bond should not be confiscated and an amount of Rs.40,000 be recovered each from them and deposited in Government Treasury.
3. The petitioners appeared in pursuance of notices before the learned Sessions Judge, Layyah and took up the plea that they had stood surety for each of the petitioner in the bail petitions on humanitarian grounds and that since they have no means to live except the bonded property therefore, the notices be discharged. It was also submitted that they should be given time to produce the accused petitioners after searching them.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, Layyah passed the impugned order, whereby the bail bonds were confiscated under section 514, Cr.P.C. And the sureties were directed to deposit Rs.10,000 out of total amount of surety i.e. Rs.40,000 in the Treasury failing which the forfeited amount was to be recovered through legal process.
5. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order, the petitioners have submitted that the impugned order was not liable to stand as the surety bonds were not forfeited immediately after the accused/petitioners absented themselves. In this connection, it was contended that the learned Sessions Judge had issued notices in the first instance calling upon the sureties to show cause as to why the surety bonds be not forfeited. Reliance was placed on 1994 P.Cr.LJ. 834 Lahore to show that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge, Layyah before passing the impugned order was not warranted in law.
6. I have considered the above submissions and have also gone through the authority cited at the Bar. The facts of the present case are distinguishable than those narrated in the authority cited above in that in the reported case the liability of the surety existed up to a specific date whereas in the instant case the liability of the surety existed till the bail petitions were finally determined and that the accused were to appear on each date of hearing.
7. Adverting now to the facts of the case, in hand, it may be pointed out that the confiscation of the surety bond is only to be made and the penalty is to be inflicted after the Court concerned is satisfied that the bonds stand forfeited. The satisfaction should be objective and after hearing the person i.e. The surety before the penalty is inflicted. Section 514, Cr.P.C. And the principle of natural justice also require that before the surety bonds are forfeited the surety should be given an opportunity of being heard before any order of forfeiture or penalty was to be made. The learned Sessions Judge had therefore, rightly issued show--case notices and after being satisfied that the sureties had failed to produce the H accused as per surety bonds, the same were forfeited. The penalty of Rs.10,000 i.e. 1/4th of original amount of surety was inflicted after hearing the sureties and as such the impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality or irregularity which may call for interference on the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Resultantly both the criminal revision petitions are dismissed in limine.