1. ' Brief facts of the case are that accused Muradoo son of Jiwan Kosh while facing trial before learned Sessions Judge Jacobabad was granted bail in the sum of Rs,100,000. Applicant Abdul Rasool stood surety and furnished bond in the above amount before learned Trial Court on behalf of accused. During trial accused Muradoo remained absent without intimation on 15-10-1998. As such surety bond furnished by the applicant was forfeited. Notice was issued to the surety who produced the accused and submitted his explanation. However the learned Trial Court vide order, dated 23-2-1999 forfeited the entire bond and imposed the penalty of Rs,100,000. Hence the present revision application.
2. ' Mr. Muhammad Murad Chachar learned counsel for surety/applicant submitted that on receipt of the notice surety produced the accused before the Court and submitted application stating therein that since accused was declared as Karo' and, therefore, it order to save his life he went underground and after receipt of the notice surety produced the accused before the Trial Court where he is still facing trial. Mr. Chachar further submits that surety has fulfilled his commitment by producing the accused before the Court so that he may face According to hint the forfeiture, of the whole bond and recovery of Rs,100,000 from the surety in the above circumstances is very excessive and harsh and the penalty limy be reduced.
3. ' Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar does not dispute the correctness of the facts stated by learned counsel for the applicant but submits that since accused has remained absent without intimation, the impugned order does not call for any interference.
4. ' We have gone through the material placed with the case. It transpires from the R&P of this revision application that on 23-2-1999 applicant submitted application before the Trial Court mentioning therein that since accused has remained absent from the Court for reason that he was declared 'Karo' and due to fear of life, he went underground and failed to appear before the Court and that surety brought the accused and produced him before the Court. However, the learned Trial Court on the same day imposed the penalty. It is also matter of record that on receipt of first notice, surety took efforts and produced the accused before the Court and furnished explanation for non- appearance of the accused.
5. ' Be that as it may, since accused was produced by the surety, the forfeiture of entire bond was not justified and a case for reduction in the penalty amount has been made out.
6. ' For the above reasons we allow the revision application to the extent of reducing the penalty amount from Rs,100,000 to Rs,50,000. At the request of Mr. Muhammad Murad Chachar two months time is granted to the applicant so that he may deposit amount of Rs,50,000 before the Trial Court.
7. ' The criminal revision along with miscellaneous application fixed for hearing stands disposed of in the above terms.