' At the very outset the learned Additional Advocate-General has taken the stand that the appeal is not competent in this case, when confronted learned counsel for the appellant conceded and requested that appeal be treated as revision. As such, this appeal is converted into revision.
2. The petitioner Muhammad Sohail Nawaz Khan stood surety for Muhammad Shoaib Khan his brother in case F.I.R. No,189 of 1996, dated 5-6-1996, Police Station Multan Cantt., under section 506/186, P.P.C. Of Rs,50,000. The bail was granted to the accused by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 6-6-1996 and a direction was issued that the accused should appear before him on 16- 6-1996 and thereafter, to continue appearing in that Court.
3. The accused and his surety/petitioner gave the bail bond in which it was agreed that in case the accused did not appear the accused as well as the petitioner/surety will pay Rs,50,000 as penalty to the Government of Pakistan.
4. On 16-6-1996 the accused did not appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge due to his ailment and a medical certificate issued by Dr. Khuda Bakhsh Malik, M.B.,B.S. (Punjab), M.R.C.P.
(London), M .R . C. P. (Ireland), Physician/ Consultant, Multan was produced in which it was certified that he had examined the patient on 13-6-1996 who was suffering from lumbago due to spinal disc herniate and advised him strict rest on a hard bed for three weeks and the case was adjourned to 20-6-1996 but again the petitioner could not appear as he was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Multan on 19-6-1996 and was discharged on 25-6-1996 and was advised by the Surgeon rest for two months and to remain on hard bed. The name of the Surgeon in the discharge slip issued by Civil Hospital vide Indoor Registration No,629 of 1996 was Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan. On the next that is, 27-6-1996 accused did not appear and a show-cause notice was given to the Doctor/Medical Officer for 4-7-1996. When again it was reported that the accused was still suffering from backache the Court ordered that he should be produced before the Medial Superintendent on 7-7-1996 and to report on 11-7-1996. The accused appeared before the Medical Superintendent. The Medical Superintendent vide his confidential Letter No,912/CHM reported to the Court that the accused appeared before him on 8-7-1996. He complained pain of his back and as per record of the hospital he was admitted in the hospital on 19-6-1996 by Dr. Mehr Noor Ahmad Joota, Medical Officer and discharged on 25-6-1996 with the advice of two months' hard bed rest by Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Surgeon. He had been investigated in the hospital and his X-Ray got done and no abnormality was detected at that time. The case was adjourned to 16-7-1996. On that date again the accused was absent and the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail for non-prosecution and started proceedings against surety under section 514, Cr.P.C. And also issued notice to Dr. Noor Ahmad for 17-7-1996. On 17-7-1996 it was holiday and on 18-7-1996 the accused again moved for pre-arrest bail with the learned Sessions Judge with the additional request that it may be entrusted to some other Judge. Again the case was entrusted to the same learned Additional Sessions Judge and there were holidays on 19-7-1996 and 20-7-1996 and the accused moved another application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he should not hear the bail application but he rejected the bail application as well as the application for transfer on 21-7-1996. After the rejection of the bail on 21-7-1996 the learned Additional Sessions Judge the accused surrendered before the learned Magistrate 1st Class when vide order dated 22- 7-1996 granted bail to the accused as the offences were bailable.
5. The proceedings against the surety started on 21-7-1996 forfeiting the bail bonds and issuing show-cause notice for 31-7-1996 and finally directing that the amount of Rs,50,000 be deposited by the suety with the District Collector, Multan.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the evidence on which the impugned order has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was legal and as to whether when the accused has surrendered before the Court on 22-7-1996 proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Against the surety were called for?
7. The certificates produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge were issued by the Orthopaedic Surgeon and also a Surgeon of a Plastic Surgery, as such, to base the findings on the reply to the notice given to the Medical Officer and the opinion of the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital is erroneous as the Medical Superintendent was not the Specialist or the Orthopeadic Surgeon. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears, has taken the facts which favoured the imposition of penalty on the surety and did not take into consideration the fact that the accused for whom the petitioner stood surety had. Surrendered himself before the Court on 22-7-1996 and the admitted facts, such as, admission of the accused on 19-6-1996 in the hospital and discharge therefrom on 25-6-1996. The reply of the Medical Officer on which much reliance has been placed also stated that the accused was in fact admitted in the hospital but was forwarded to the Surgeon in view of his ailment. It would have been much safer if the learned Additional Sessions Judge had asked the Orthopeadic Surgeon who was an Associate Professor in Nishtar Medical College, Multan to verify about the illness or otherwise of the accused. It was all the more necessary to ask the Orthopeadic Surgeon when Dr. Noor Ahmad, the Medical Officer stated that to issue a certificate advising rest was the job of the Surgeon and not the Medical Officer. Above this, the order imposing penalty of Rs,50,000 was made on 10-10-1996 when the accused had surrendered himself before the Court and had been granted bail by the learned Magistrate 1st Class.
8. From the above discussion it can safely be held that the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded on wrong assumption of facts and did not take into consideration the certificates issued by the Specialists in the field of Surgery rather based his decision on the opinion of a Medical Officer and did not take into consideration that the accused had already surrendered, as such, this revision is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 10-10-1996 is declared to be illegal.
9. Now coming to the other aspect of the case and that is the allegations levelled in the petition.
The offences with which the accused stood charged were bailable and in ordinary course the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted would have been confirmed, therefore, there was no reason for the accused to be not present on the date of hearing fixed by the Court. The haste with which the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded without taking into consideration that the accused for whom the petitioner stood surety has surrendered himself before the Court and was allowed bail, supports the allegations levelled in paragraph 3 of the grounds of revision.
10. Article 203 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 reads as under: "203. High Court to superintend subordinate Courts.--- Each High Court shall supervise and control all Courts subodinate to it."
' This Court derives its supervisory authority over the Courts subordinate to it from the above- quoted Article of the Constitution, therefore, when such serious allegations have been levelled against an officer of the subordinate judiciary as in the present case, this Court is under a Constitutional duty to take notice of it. The way in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has conducted himself clearly speaks of something else. However, I am leaving this matter open for the Hon'ble Inspection Judge of the District for appropriate action. A copy of this order shall also be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore.
Revision .