JUDGMENT Mulla, J. - This decision will dispose of Cr. Rev. Nos. 142 and 219 of 1954. The same points arise in both these cases. The two applicants in these two revisions are Bunyad Husain and Iqbal Husain, who were sureties for Debidin and Ram Samajh, Debidih, and Ram Samajh were sent up by police station Safdarganj, district Barabanki, for trial u/s 457, IPC. They were accused in the same case, which was first sent up to the court of the Judicial Officer, Fatehpur on 8-5-1951. Before the trial of the case started both Debidin and Ram Samajh applied for bail in the court of the Judicial Officer, Nawabganj. Both the accused persons were released on bail on 24-4-1951. They executed personal bonds and the two applicants were their sureties. 2. The personal bonds and the bonds filled by the sureties were on two sides of the same paper. On top of this paper the Court of the Judicial Officer Nawabganj was mentioned. The two applicants gave the undertaking that they will produce the accused persons in the said court or in the court of Sessions, if required. In case of a breach they undertook to pay Rs 500 each. Two bonds were executed, one for Ram Samajh and the other for Debidin, The bond for Debidin was in favour of Bharat Sarkar; while the bond for Ram Samajh was in favour of His Majesty the King Emperor. It appears that an old form was used and the words 'Bharat Sarkar' were not substituted for His Majesty the King-Emperor in the second bond, When the case came up for trial the two accused per sons Debidin and Ram Samajh appeared in the court of the Judicial Officer, Fatehpur, Subsequently this case was transferred under tne order of the District Magistrate, Barabanki, to the court of the Judicial Officer, Nawabganj, on 20-7-1951, After some hearings the two accused persons absconded and the applicants could not produce them before the Judicial Officer, Nawabganj. Their trial could not, therefore, proceed. It is not quite clear how this case came before the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat, who issued notice against the applicants, why their surety bonds be not forfeited. Their trial could not, therefore, proceed. It is not quite clear how this case came before the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat, who issued notice against the applicants, why their surety bonds be not forfeited. The applicants appeared before the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat and on 28-1-1954 this Court passed an order forfeiting the entire amount of the surety bonds u/s 514(1), CrPC, The applicants went up in appeal before the Sessions judge, Barabanki u/s , 515, Code of Criminal Procedure but their appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat, was maintained. They have now come up in revision before this Court. 3. Two contentions have been advanced by the counsel for the applicants in this case, Firstly, it is contended that a bond executed in favour of His Majesty the King-Emperor is no longer enforceable and could not be forfeited, as it was not in favour of Government as provided in Form No. 42 of Schedule v. of the Code of Criminal Procedure as amended by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. This amending order was issued on 26 1-1950. As the bonds in this case were executed on 24-4-1951, i,e. after the commencement of the new Constitution and the coming into force of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, it could not be enforced as His Majesty the King-Emperor had ceased to exist. Secondly, it was contended that the Judicia-Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat had no Jurisdiction to forfeit these bonds, as it was against the rule of law laid down in S. 514 of the CrPC. In my opinion both these contentions are sound and they must be accepted. 4. As far as the first contention is concerned, there is a string of decisions of our High Court in which it has been held that a bond executed in favour of His Majesty the King-Emperor is no longer enforceable. Only one of these decisions, to the best of my knowledge, is reported; while the others are not reported. These decisions are- 1. Criminal Revision No. 256 of 1951, Asharfi Lal and Anr. v. State, dated 10-2-1954. 2. Criminal Revision No, 229 of 1953, Manohar v. State dated 2-10-1954. 3. Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1954, Shatrohan Singh and Anr. v. State dated 20-4-1955. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 1954, Khunnu v. Ssate, dated 16-8-1955, and 5. These decisions are- 1. Criminal Revision No. 256 of 1951, Asharfi Lal and Anr. v. State, dated 10-2-1954. 2. Criminal Revision No, 229 of 1953, Manohar v. State dated 2-10-1954. 3. Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1954, Shatrohan Singh and Anr. v. State dated 20-4-1955. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 1954, Khunnu v. Ssate, dated 16-8-1955, and 5. Criminal Revision No. 1935 of 1953, Bhairon Lal v. State, dated 29-8-1953. 5 Out of these decisions only the last decision is reported in 1953 AWR 581. The first decision in this list was given by a Bench of this Court and it was followed in all the subsequent decisions. It is therefore, not necessary to mention the same reasons again for holding that a bond executed in favour of His Majesty the King-Emperor cannot be forfeited. 6. s, however, does not end the matter, because out of the two bonds executed only one was in favour of His Majesty the King-Emperor and the other was in favour of Bharat Sarkar., but the order relating to this bond also cannot be upheld because in my opinion it was passed without jurisdiction. S. 514, Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows: (1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid. 7. An analysis of the Section shows that two different types of bonds are contemplated and different courts are empowered to forfeit the bonds in the two different types of cases. The first paragragh of Sub-section (1) of S. 514, Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates those cases where a bond is taken but it is not for appearance before any particular court. The second paragraph contemplates those cases where the bond is taken for appearance before a particular court. The first paragragh of Sub-section (1) of S. 514, Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates those cases where a bond is taken but it is not for appearance before any particular court. The second paragraph contemplates those cases where the bond is taken for appearance before a particular court. In the first type of cases any first class Magistrate can forfeit the bond, but in the second class of cases only that court can forfeit the bond before whom it was undertaken that an accused person would be produced. The words of the bond are, therefore, to be strictly interpreted and a bond can be forfeited only where the agreement is specifically violated. The Supreme Court has held in State of Bihar v. M Homi 1955 CrLJ 1017 that the terms of such a bond must be very strictly construed as its terms are penal in nature. It is, therefore, clear-that there can be no forfeiture of a bond except by a breach of its own specific terms. The liability of a person who executes the bond only extends upto the actual agreement to which he had bound himself in clear and unambiguous words. The applicants in this case no doubt undertook to produce the accused persons in the court of the Judicial Officer Nawabganj or in the Court of Sessions and they failed to do so. Under Para. 2 of Sub-section (1) of S. 514 Code of Criminal Procedure it was open to the Judicial Officer Nawabganj to issue notice against the applicants and forfeit their bonds, if their explanation did not satisfy, him. It was not open to the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat to forfeit these bonds. 8. Where the language of the bond shows that the sureties undertook to produce the accused before a court and not in any particular court, it amounts to an undertaking to produce him before any court and such a case falls within the orbit of the first paragraph of sub S. (1) of S. 514, CrPC. It is only in such a case that some other court, apart from the court which took the bonds, provided he is a Magistrate of the first class can take action against the persons who executed the bonds because they failed to fulfil their undertaking. It is only in such a case that some other court, apart from the court which took the bonds, provided he is a Magistrate of the first class can take action against the persons who executed the bonds because they failed to fulfil their undertaking. But where the words of the bond indicate that the surety only undertook to produce an accused person before a particular court, it is the second paragraph of Sub-section (1) of S. 514, Code of Criminal Procedure which is applicable and only that court which took the bond can forfeit it. 9. In this case it was only the Judicial Officer Nawabganj who could forfeit the bonds and the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat, had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. The Government Advocate relied upon the decision in Ballabh Dass v. Rex 1950 ALJ 446. This case, however, is an authority for the first type of bonds and not the second type. It is applicable in those cases where the undertaking given was to preduce an accused person in a court whenever called upon and the particular court was not mentioned. In the present case it is clearly mentioned in the bond that the sureties would produce the accused in the 'said court' which meant the court of the Judicial Officer, Nawabganj. The rule of the law which is applicable to the facts of this case is contained in a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Balabh Das Moti Ram Gupta v. King Emperor AIR 1943 Bom. 178. In this case the bond was for appearance before the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay but the order of forfeiture was passed by the Eighth Presidency Magistrate. Beaumont C.J. observed: There is also a difficulty arising u/s 514, CrPC, which provides that whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken or of the Court of a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, or, when bond is for appearance before a court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court may take action. Here, the bond is for appearance before the court of the Cheif Presidency Magistrate and under the section it is that Court which has to be satisfied before the bond can be forfeited. Here, the bond is for appearance before the court of the Cheif Presidency Magistrate and under the section it is that Court which has to be satisfied before the bond can be forfeited. It does not appear that the Cheif Presidency Magistrate has considered the matter. I think on that further ground the Preidency Magistrate of the Eighth Court had no jurisdiction to forfeit the bond. 10. I agree with the view expressed above and in my opinion where a bond is executed in which an undertaking is given to produce an accused before a particular court, it is that court alone which has the jurisdiction to forfeit the bond and not any other court. 11. I therefore, find that the order passed by the Judicial Officer, Ram Sanehi Ghat, in this case is without jurisdiction and so I set it aside. These applications of revisions are, therefore, allowed. The stay orders are vacated. If any amounts have been realized from either of the applicants, it should be refunded.