ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl. Revision Appln. No. S-  14 of 2012.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

1. For orders on M.A No. 849/2012.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

05.04.2012.

          Mr. Akbar Ali Dahar, Advocate for applicant.

          Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahyo, State counsel.

~~~

          This criminal revision application has been  moved against the impugned order dated 28.02.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Larkana, in Sessions Case No. 290/2000.

          The brief facts of the case are that applicant stood surety for accused Haji Mehboob in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Two hundred thousands). On furnishing surety, the said accused was released on bail, and he was attending the Court, however on 10.07.2002, he was called absent and on another date also he failed to appear, therefore, the surety bond was forfeited. The applicant submitted reply to notice issued under section 514 Cr.P.C before the learned trial Court, and it was stated that due to enmity between the Unnar and Abra community the accused Haji Mehboob in order to save his life gone underground. It was further stated that no monetary gain was obtained by the applicant; and it was further stated that applicant is a poor person and cannot bear the burden of forfeiture of surety bond and he cannot pay this amount from his limited source of income. In the trial Court it was further averred that the applicant stood surety on humanitarian grounds, as the relatives of the accused gave the name of Holy Quran and Almighty Allah to the applicant/ surety to stand surety for the accused.

          I have seen the impugned order, in which the trial Court has rightly considered the facts of entire case and passed a speaking order and instead of fine of Rs.200,000/-, the penalty was reduced upto Rs.1,50,000/-; but now the learned counsel for the applicant again requested that the applicant is poor person and he cannot pay penalty amount from his limited source of income, therefore, he prays for further leniency. He has also placed on record a copy of order dated 29.03.2012, passed by me in Crl. Revision Appln. No.15/2012, in which under the similar circumstances, I reduced penalty amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.100,000/-. The learned State counsel has also no objection to the reduction of penalty amount to some reasonable extent.

          In view of the above, though there is no interference required to be made in the impugned order, however taking lenient view, the fine/penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- (One lac, fifty thousands), is reduced to Rs.100,000/- (One hundred thousands), which shall be deposited by the applicant/surety in two equal monthly installments, failing which the learned trial Court may initiate recovery proceedings against the applicant in accordance with law.

          The applicants stands disposed of.

                                                                        Judge