Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABID HUSSAIN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Fazal-e-Miran ChauhanZafar Abbas Khan,Farzana Khan
2007 Y L R 1305
2007 Y L R 1305
[Lahore]
Before Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J
ABID HUSSAIN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No.980 of 2006, heard on 11th January, 2007.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 514(1)(2) & (5)---Forfeiture of bail bond---Remission of penally---Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, having absconded did not appear in the Court on date of hearing, on which bail bond of petitioner was forfeited---Validity---No opportunity was provided to petitioner to produce accused in the Court---Petitioner had alleged that a very harsh view was taken against him as he was not beneficiary of accused nor there was any consideration obtained by hint to stand as surety of accused---Petitioner, who had not derived any benefit, deserved lenient view---Provisions of S.514 (5), Cr.P.C. having provided remittance of any portion of penalty, penalty of Rs.30, 000 imposed on surety was reduced to Rs. 4, 000 accordingly.
Sher Ali and others v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 94; PLD 1952 Lah. 695; PLD 1963 SC 97 and 2000 PCr.LJ 94 ref.
Zafar Abbas Khan for Appellant.
Farzana Khan, Assistant Prosecutor General for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th January, 2007.
JUDGMENT
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---Abid Hussain, petitioner, stood surety for one Arshad Javed, who was granted bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.188 dated 22-7-2006 registered with Police Station, City Bhakkar by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar and submitted surety bond of Rs.30,000 on 2-8-2006. The said Arshad Javid absconded himself and did not appear on 10-8-2006. Resultantly, the bail bonds were forfeited by the learned Sessions Judge and show cause was issued in the name of petitioner. Being dissatisfied by the reply to the show-cause notice the learned Sessions Judge by invoking the provisions of section 514(1)(2) and (3) Cr.P.C. imposed penalty of Rs.30,000 on the petitioner and ordered that Robkar be issued to District Officer (Revenue), Bhakkar for the recovery of Rs.30,000 from the petitioner. Hence this criminal revision.
2. It is argued that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to produce the accused Arshad Javed in the Court. It is further argued that a very harsh view was taken by learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar as the petitioner is not beneficiary of the accused nor any consideration was obtained to stand as surety. Finally submitted that in view of the law laid down in case Sher Ali and others v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 94) a lenient view may be taken and penalty be reduced.
3. The learned Assistant Prosecutor General opposed the criminal revision and stated that penalty was rightly imposed by invoking the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. The relevant law regarding remittance of any portion of the penalty as contained in section 514(5), Cr.P.C. reads as under:--
"514 (5). The Court may in its discretion remit any portion of penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only."
Keeping in view the law laid down in cases reported as PLD 1952 Lahore 695, PLD 1963 SC 97 and 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 94, I am convinced that an opportunity to produce the accused should have been granted to the petitioner, even otherwise he has derived no benefit and he deserves a lenient view. Therefore, the penalty imposed is reduced from Rs.30,000 to Rs.4,000. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed partly to that extent only.
H.B.T./A-2/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.