1. ' The applicant has assailed an order passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, dated 2-9- 1997, whereby he ordered the amount of surety bond furnished by the applicant for the release of accused Abdul Salam be paid in full i,e, Rs,1,00,000. Notice was issued to the surety in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C. Which was unserved, ultimately Railway Police produced the surety before the trial Court on 3-8-1997 after arresting the surety. When the surety/applicant was arrested one Nek Muhammad stood surety and executed a bond of Rs,10,000 for his appearance in Court on the subsequent date. This case was adjourned to 13-8-1997. And on that date time was allowed to the surety and the case was adjourned to 2-9-1997. On 2-9-1997 the impugned order was passed.
2. ' Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, stated that no sufficient time was allowed to the surety to produce the accused, second ground urged was that no order was passed first forfeiting the bond and thereafter, notice in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C.
3. Should have been served and only after final order was passed directing applicant to pay the amount, process for recovery should have been initiated.
4. ' Reverting to his first grounds, the perusal of the diary-sheet, reveals that the applicant himself filed an application on 14-1-1997, in which he stated the reasons for the absence of accused Abdul Salam, and such application was granted. This case was adjourned to 15-2-1997 and ever since then the accused Abdul Salam remained absent without any intimation. The applicant himself was aware on 14-1-1997 regarding the non-appearance of accused person, for whom he was surety.
5. The contention, therefore, urged that no sufficient time was allowed to the surety, is belied by the record, and therefore, not sustainable.
6. ' Reverting to the second ground, I find from the record that no order was passed for forfeiting the surety bond but at the same time notice was issued in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C., which led inference to the fact that the accused will not appear, therefore, Court took the view that the surety was unable to produce the accused although formal order of forfeiture of bond, was not passed.
7. But that is only an irregularity, not an illegality. The applicant all along knew that the accused person for whom he was surety, did not attend the Court. However, I find that only one illegality is apparent that without ordering the full amount to be paid, the process was initiated for recovery of amount from the surety by ordering the attachment of property of surety, and to that extent an illegality is apparent on record. However, this is not the case of applicant. The case of the applicant, is that no order of forfeiture of bond was passed and the amount, therefore, could not be recovered. For that contention, it has already been held that it is an irregularity. Further, from the record I find that on 3-8-1997 when the applicant/surety was apprehended and brought before the Court, he filed an application stating that he will deposit the amount in terms of surety bond executed in Court and on that application, it appears that the order was passed by trial Judge. For the sake of convenience order, dated 3-8-1997 is reproduced:-- "S.H.O. Police Station Railway arrested surety and produced before this Court. Mr. A. Ghafoor Mirani, Advocate filed power on behalf of surety and statement filed by the surety in which he states that he will produce the accused and will deposit the amount, order on it. Nek Muhammad also present and filed statement order on it. Let the surety be released on P.R. Bond of Rs,10,000. That he will furnish surety on the date of hearing Nek Muhammad also released on P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs,10,000. Matter already fixed on 13-8-1997."
8. ' The amount was not deposited on the next date, consequently an order was passed on 2-9-1997 and on the face of record I find that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant/surety on account of the facts that no formal order was passed first, forfeiting the surety bond. Moreover, when the Court passed orders on 15-2-1997 directing issuance of N.B.Ws. And notice to the surety, it could be presumed that the bond so furnished was forfeited.
7. It is well-settled law that technicalities unless they pose insurmountable difficulties in the administration of justice, are not to be looked into. In other words the logic of words, must yield to the logic of reality. I find that the technical objection indeed has not changed the reality apparent on the face of record. For the reasons firstly, that the applicant was aware about the absence of accused person since 14-1-1997, secondly, that he took no efforts on his part to locate and persuade the accused to attend the Court, thirdly, surety did not appear before the trial Court at any time in spite of notice issued until such time he was arrested and produced before the Court and fourthly, because surety had himself undertaken to deposit the amount of surety in the Court on 3-8-1997, the irregularity committed by the trial Court by not forfeiting ihe bond first is cureable.
9. For these reasons, no exceptions are called for against the impugned order, which is maintained.
10. ' Consequently, this criminal revision application is dismissed alongwith miscellaneous application in limine.