The petitioner stood surety for one Ghulam Rasool an accused in case F.I.R. No,161 dated 28-4-1999 registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Garjak , Gujranwala. The said accused did not appear before the trial Court during the trial and the petitioner surety was summoned to face the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C.
The petitioner appeared before the trial Court and submitted reply on 29-4-2002. The trial Court being not satisfied with the reply while passing the impugned order directed the petitioner to deposit Rs,50,000 in Court till 6-5-2002.
2. Admit. Notice. Learned Law Officer accepts notice and while supporting the impugned order has opposed the instant criminal revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither beneficiary of the accused nor he got any consideration to stand as surety and that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is harsh in nature and a lenient view be taken.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. During proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. opportunities were provided to the petitioner for the production of Ghulam Rasul accused and also petitioner was given opportunities to explain his position. Prima facie, I see no illegality in the procedure adopted by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.
6. Under section 514(5), Cr.P.C. to remit any portion of the penalty is within the discretion of the Court. Since tnere is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner stood surety for sortie personal gain, a lenient view, in the circumstances of this case would meet the ends of justice.
Keeping in view the dictum laid down in Sher Ali and another v. The State (2000 P.Cr.P.J.. 94), I am persuaded to take a lenient view with regard to the quantum of penalty. Accordingly, I reduce the penalty from Rs,50,000 to Rs,25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand) to be paid within sixty days.
With this modification the instant criminal revision stands disposed of.