' Aggrieved by an order dated 18-3-1996 passed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) in Sessions Case No,222 of 1991, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.
2. Facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner had stood a surety for accused Anwar Khan son of Hassan Gul in the abovementioned case which had arisen from an F.I.R. Dated 10-5-1991 Police Station P.N.C.B., Gulshan-e-Iqbal and had involved Anwar Khan alongwith other co-accused persons for the commission of offence under Article 3/4 Prohibition (Enforcement of. Hadd) Order, 1979. During the trial Anwar Khan absconded. Final Judgment dated 15-5-1997 acquitted two accused in the following words:--- ' "Since, it is not proved beyond doubt that the 'house from where the heroin and opium were recovered belonged to the present accused persons or they were residing in that house, it is not proved that the heroin and the opium were secured from their possession. Consequently the charge has not been proved and the accused are entitled to acquittal. They are acquitted accordingly. Accused Nek Muhammad is in custody and he shall be released forthwith. The absconding' accused Anwar Khan need not be arrested in this case."
' It appears, therefore, that Anwar Khan stands acquitted and for him the present petitioner stood surety.
3. The impugned order precedes the final judgment, but suffers from inherent defects and violates the principles of natural justice as well as law laid down by section 514, Cr.P.C. Relevant subsections of the said section are quoted verbatim: "514: Procedure on forfeiture of bond.--(1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show-cause why it should not be paid.
(2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the movable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead."
' Thus, it is clear that after forfeiture of the bond, neither the grounds for the proof of the omission on the part of the petitioner have been recorded nor the petitioner bound down by his own bond has been called upon to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. The provision of subsection (2) of the section 514, Cr.P.C. Have been ignored to the extent that without issuing S.C.N. And without satisfying itself that the sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the trial Court has proceeded to recover the amount of penalty by issuing a warrant for the attachment of the property involved in the surety and owned by the petitioner.
After hearing the counsel for petitioner, when the learned Advocate-General for the Province of Sindh was asked to reply, he admitted that the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law. I had made a short order in this regard on 3-3-1998 setting aside the impugned order. These are the reasons for the said order.