' The necessary facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that one Shabbir Ahmad accused was admitted to post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,243 registered at Police Station Machhiwal, District. Vehari on 4-12-1990 for offence under sections 302/364/365, P.P.C. And the petitioner had stood as the accused person's surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000. Subsequently the abovementioned accused person absented himself from the learned trial Court and resultantly, his bail was cancelled, the bail bond was forfeited and proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. During such proceedings the petitioner failed to appear before the learned trial Court despite issuance of repeated notices to him in that regard and later on bailable and then non-bailable warrants of his arrest were issued by the learned trial Court.
However, on account of persistent failure of the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court an order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari on 4-9-2000 imposing a penalty of Rs,1,00,000 upon the petitioner and it was directed that the landed property of the petitioner may be forfeited. Hence, the present revision petition before this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case appended with this revision petition it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner had failed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari despite issuance of notices, bailable warrants and even non-bailable warrants of his arrest and the petitioner had never contested the proceedings against him under section 514, Cr.P.C. Before the said Court. It is not disputed that even till today the petitioner has not appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari despite issuance of a non-bailable warrant for his arrest. It is trite law that a person who wilfully abstains from appearing before a Court of law forefeits his right of audience and no Court of law is obliged to afford him an opportunity of hearing in any further challenge until and unless he surrenders before the Court. Unfortunately the petitioner has failed to turn up even before this Court today.
3. It is not disputed that the accused person for whose bail the present petitioner had stood as surety has not so far resurfaced and, therefore, the trial in the abovementioned murder case has been stalled due to the said accused person's failure to appear before the learned trial Court. This clearly establishes that the petitioner has so far failed to fulfil his obligation and commitment made before the learned trial Court regarding production of the said accused person before the learned trial Court as and when required. The order sheet pertaining to proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C., a copy whereof has been appended with this petition as Annexure-B, shows that on 15- 1-2000 the petitioner has failed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari despite his having been personally served for the said date. It is not readily acceptable or believable that despite his property being put to auction and despite issuance of warrants of his arrest the petitioner had not come to know about the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari which depicts a stubborn, obstinate and contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner which clearly disentitles him to an exercise of discretion in his favour.
4. The petitioner had himself volunteered to become a surety for the abovementioned accused person's bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and, thus, it does not lie in his mouth to urge that the said amount of penalty is oppressive or excessive. As regards the case of the surety of Shahbaz co- accused namely Muhammad Siddique it has been noticed that the said surety had been dealt with leniently by the learned trial Court and only a penalty of Rs,10,000 had been imposed upon him because the said surety had appeared before the learned trial Court in connection with proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Whereas the said consideration was not available in the case of the present petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was not similarly placed in the situation as the abovementioned surety of the co-accused and, therefore, it cannot be claimed before this Court that the petitioner had been discriminated against vis-a-vis the surety of the abovementioned co- accused.
5. Despite the fact that the conduct displayed by the petitioners has apparently disentitled him to any exercise of discretion by this Court in his favour there is one aspect of this case which cannot be ignored or brushed aside and that is that according to the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. a warrant of attachment of only movable property can be issued in proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, in his order, dated 4-9-2000, ordered attachment of landed property/immovable property of the petitioner. This apparently could not have been done under the law but this aspect of the matter may not detain this Court any further because the learned counsel for the petitioner has himself volunteered that if a reasonable time is given to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs,1,00,000 in cash towards discharge of his liability based upon the abovementioned penalty then he would not contest the legal aspects of the impugned proceedings or the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has also submitted that the purpose of the proceedings of auction of the petitioner's landed property was to recover the amount of penalty and if the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of penalty within a reasonable time then the auction proceedings can be stayed so as to facilitate the petitioner to deposit the amount of penalty in cash on his own.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed to deposit the amount of penalty of Rs,1,00,000 before the learned trial Court on or before 15-12-2001. If the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount of penalty in cash by the abovementioned date then the said amount may be recovered by attachment of the petitioner's movable property as envisaged by the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. This revision petition is disposed of in these terms. The recovery proceedings already in progress shall remain stayed till 15-12-2001 and this order regarding stay of recovery proceedings shall automatically lapse on 15-12-2001 without any further order from this Court.