' KHALIL-UR-RAHMAN RAMDAY, J.---Allah Ditta petitioner! Has stood surety for one Mst. Asma at the time of her release on bail in case E.I.R. No, 67 of 2002 of Police Station, B-Division of Okara. On account of the absence of the said accused person on one of the dates fixed for hearing, a notice was issued to Allah Ditta petitioner to show cause against forfeiture of the bond furnished by him.
He did not appear before the Court in pursuance of the said notice. Consequently, through an order, dated 23-1-2003 passed by a learned Additional District Judge at Okara the said bond furnished by Allah Ditta was forfeited and recovery of the amount of bond was directed. On a revision filed by him bearing Criminal Revision No, 56 of the 2003 the Lahore High Court through its order, dated 18-2-2003 showed leniency and reduced the forfeited amount of bond from Rs,50,000 to Rs,25,000.
2. The learned counsel has not been able to show how the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge or by the learned Revisional Court was illegal. Needless to mention here that nonappearance of an accused person on any date of hearing makes the said accused person or the surety of such an accused person liable to pay the amount of bond and the jurisdiction exercised by the two learned Courts was thus valid and legal. There is thus no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.