H. R. KRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant has coma up from an order of the Magistrate forfeiting the entirety of his security of 1000/- in a bond under section 110 for the good behaviour of one abdul Sattar. When the bond was in force, Abdul Sattar was charged and convicted for an offence under section 354, I. P. C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment, Then both Abdul Sattar, and the surety that is, the present applicant were asked to show cause against the forfeiture of the bonds but while the bond of Abdul Sattar was forfeited only to the extent of 200/- out of 1000/-, the surety's bond has been forfeited in full. ( 2 ) THE surety has come averring firstly, that it is very difficult for one person to keep control over the behaviour of another and therefore the bond should not have been forfeited; Secondly the security of the "principal" has been forfeited in part and in accordance with the principles contained in Chanda Singh v. Emperor, air 1940 Lah 32, the surety's bond should not be forfeited; at any rate, it is urged that the amount realized from Abdul Sattar which is 200/- should be deducted. ( 3 ) THERE is no doubt that a surety in a bond for good behaviour takes a serious responsibility and it is not always easy for him to see that the person bound keeps good behaviour. But it is the essence of the bond and a person who undertakes such responsibility should take the consequences. ( 4 ) WITH all respect, I do not agree with the Lahore view. It is not a case of civil liability but a case of preventive action and the fact that the person bound has been dealt with has no bearing upon the responsibility of the surety. Actually, the lahore view has not been supported by any of the other High Courts and has been expressly dissented from by the Allahabad High Court. So, there is no ground for following the Lahore view and refunding to the surety the sum of 200/- said to have been realized from Abdul Sattar. ( 5 ) IT is also argued at the Bar that Abdul Sattar himself having been let off easily, the surety should not have been dealt with so severely. So, there is no ground for following the Lahore view and refunding to the surety the sum of 200/- said to have been realized from Abdul Sattar. ( 5 ) IT is also argued at the Bar that Abdul Sattar himself having been let off easily, the surety should not have been dealt with so severely. There may have been various reasons why Abdul Sattar was let off with the forfeiture of 200/-; may be, he did not have means or it may be, the Magistrate took into account the fact of his having been sentenced to imprisonment in the case under Section 354. But that is no reason why the surety who could not see that Abdul Sattar kept good behaviour, should be treated leniently. .