1. ' Through this revision applicant has challenged the order, dated 30-3-1998 whereby applicant has been ordered to deposit Rs,30,000.
2. The facts forming the background of this case are that the applicant had stood surety in a criminal appeal filed by the appellant Mirgul against his conviction and sentence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance recorded by Judicial Magistrate, Larkana. In the appeal the said appellant was allowed bail by the Court of Sessions Judge, Larkana in the sum of Rs,30,000 on 15-12-1996. The appellant was appearing before the Appellate Court but he kept absenting from 22-7-1997 and hence a notice was served upon the applicant on 15-3-1998 and on 30-3-1998 when he appeared before the Court of Sessions Judge, Larkana, he requested for time to offer reply to the notice but his prayer was turned down and ordered to pay full bond amount i,e, Rs,30,000. In these circumstances the applicant has approached this Court.
3. ' At the very outset the learned counsel urged a leal plea that the impugned order cannot be maintained as the condition precedent to issuance of notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Viz. Forfeiture of bond, has not been complied with by the learned Sessions Judge. His second contention was that the applicant was not afforded proper opportunity of showing cause against the action taken against him as on the very first date of hearing, the order of imposition of penalty was passed.
4. I find force in both the contentions of the applicant's counsel. A perusal of section 514, Cr.P.C.
5. Reveals that notice to a surety would follow the forfeiture of the bond. I have also gone through the diaries produced on record and find that the bond was forfeited and straightway the applicant has been directed to deposit the amount.
6. ' Learned A.A.-G. Has contested this revision and supported the impugned order but he was unable to supplement his contention with any reported decision on the point.
7. Having been persuaded with the legal position stated above, I had allowed the revision vide short order, dated 17-4-1998 and above are the reasons in support of said order.
8. Revision .