HYDERABAD, Sept 6: Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit bench, has issued a warning to the Seventh Extra Joint Civil Judge and the FCM, Hyderabad, for being irresponsible towards the high court’s orders and has directed the District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Reader of the said judge.

The order was passed during the hearing of a criminal revision application, filed by one Maula Dad.

The applicant had challenged the order of the Fifth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, upholding the order of the lower court.

The applicant had stood surety for an accused, Nusrat Hussain Shah, for a sum of Rs20,000 in a 1983 case of the Market police station.

The case was transferred to the third extra joint civil judge and the FCM who had forfeited the bail bond of the accused after he remained absent from the court.

Finally the case remained pending before the Seventh Extra Joint Civil Judge and the FCM.

The state counsel, Anwar H. Ansari, stated before Justice Leghari that he perused the surety bond which revealed that it was not specified in the bond, executed by the applicant, that he would ensure the attendance of the accused before the Transferee Court.

He admitted that in such circumstances surety could not be penalized for failure on the part of the accused to appear in the transferee court; therefore, the said order was illegal.

He said that the judgment passed by the appellate court on the appeal of the applicant was perverse and thus could not be maintained.

The court set aside the order of the appellate court.

Discussing the case in his detailed order, the judge observed that it was to his utter surprise that the appellate court took trouble to give a chronology of dates of the absence of the accused but did not make any effort to have a look at the bond executed by the surety to examine as to whether the present applicant was responsible for any fault on the part of the accused.

He ruled that section 499 was not very uncommon and a senior judicial officer exercising the appellate jurisdiction was supposed to be well-versed with these provisions.

He maintained that the appellate courts were not expected to put the stamp of approval on any order or judgment passed by the magistrates.

He said that the order passed by the appellate court has not only resulted in miscarriage of justice but also added to the misery of a citizen inflicted upon him by an illegal order passed by the learned magistrate.

He noted that the high court summoned the record and proceedings of the case through an order which was not complied with by the Seventh Extra Joint Civil Judge.

The court said that it was not sufficient just to pass the order to the reader and de-shoulder his responsibility. “The magistrates are supposed to ensure compliance of the orders of this court. The casual and irresponsible manner in which the Seventh Extra Joint Civil Judge acted is highly deplorable and absolutely intolerable,” Justice Leghari ruled, and added that the comments filed by him were far from satisfactory as instead of admitting his fault he attempted to justify the laxity by passing on the buck to the reader.

The court said the judge’s explanation could not be accepted as he had not even cared to repent on account of irresponsible conduct although he rendered himself liable to disciplinary action.

The court directed the district judge, Hyderabad, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the reader of the judge saying that the compliance report should be submitted within a reasonable time to the additional registrar.

Taking a lenient view, the court issued a warning to the Seventh Extra Joint Civil Judge concerned not to repeat such acts in future.