ORDER P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. These three revision petitions arise out of orders passed by the District Magistrate of Trivandrum in three connected appeals, appeal Nos. 99, 100 and 101 of 1960 filed under S.520 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order passed by the City Second Class Magistrate of Trivandrum forfeiting the bond executed by the respondents in these revision petitions. 2. The 4th accused in C. C. 160/56 on the file of the City Second Class Magistrate of Trivandrum is the revision petitioner in all these petitions. A criminal complaint was filed against him and some others for having committed theft of a car T. C. Q. 1678. The car belonged to the 4th accused, but he had sold it to the complainant on hire purchase agreement. In default of payment the 4th accused took possession of the car and a complaint was filed against him for theft of the car. Pending the case the police seized the car and produced it in court. The court entrusted the car to the complainant and two sureties (who are the respondents in these revision petitions) on their executing a bond for Rs. 2000/-besides the value of the car, namely, Rs. 3,500/- and for its custody and production when required by the court during the course of the trial and agreeing that in default the value of the car with the penalty would be paid. 3. The case was then transferred to the file of the Corporation First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, who after trial acquitted the accused. Pending the criminal complaint the petitioner here had filed a civil suit O. S. 234/55 before the Sub Court of Trivandrum against the complainant for recovery of money under the hire purchase agreement and had applied for attachment before judgment of the car which was in the custody of the court. Attachment was ordered and intimation was given to the Magistrate regarding the attachment. In acquitting the accused the learned Magistrate, therefore, passed orders that the complainant to whom the car had been entrusted will continue to have the custody of the car till the matter was finally decided by the civil suit. 4. After the suit was decreed the petitioner applied to the Magistrate for an order calling upon the Moonnamsthanakkari to produce the car in court. 4. After the suit was decreed the petitioner applied to the Magistrate for an order calling upon the Moonnamsthanakkari to produce the car in court. On this application notice was issued and on failure to produce the car, the court proceeded under S.514 Cr. P. C., declared that the bond executed by her and the sureties was forfeited, registered a Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1960 and issued notice to the respondents herein to pay the penalty thereof and to show cause why it should not be paid. In pursuance of the notice the respondents appeared before the court and raised various objections. The learned Magistrate negatived the contentions and passed orders requiring the Kachitdar to pay a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- and the two sureties to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- each and ordered distraint warrant to be issued. 5. Against this order separate appeals were filed before the District Magistrate who allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate. It is against this order that separate revision petitions have been filed. The common question that arises in these three revision petitions is whether the Magistrate had powers to forfeit the bond executed by the respondents in each of these petitions. 6. S.516-A enables a Magistrate to provide for interim custody of property produced before it during inquiry or trial and the court is entitled to take a security bond from the person to whose custody the property is delivered for the production of such property whenever required. S.514 deals with the procedure of forfeiture of the bond executed by the parties. That section says that whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the court by which a bond under this code has been forfeited, the court shall record the grounds of such proof and may call upon any person bound to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid. 7. The question for decision is what are the terms of the bond that the parties had executed in this case and whether default had been committed and the bond could be legally forfeited. It cannot be disputed that the terms of a penal bond must be strictly construed. The case in State of Bihar v. M. Homi ( AIR 1955 SC 478 ) is a case in point. It cannot be disputed that the terms of a penal bond must be strictly construed. The case in State of Bihar v. M. Homi ( AIR 1955 SC 478 ) is a case in point. There the accused convicted under S.120B read with S.420 IPC, submitted to the Provincial Government a petition praying for suspension of his sentence in order to enable him to prefer an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Provincial Government granted the prayer and a bond was executed by the sureties in the following terms: "only in case the accused fails..............to surrender to the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum within three days of the receipt of the notice of the order or judgment of the Judicial Committee if by the said order or judgment the sentence is upheld either partly or wholly." As a result of the constitutional changes the jurisdiction of the Privy Council came to be transferred to the Federal Court. The accused's appeal to the Privy Council thus got transferred to the Federal Court and in due course was heard by the Supreme Court. On the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court the Deputy Commissioner issued notice to the sureties to produce the accused within three days. On their failure to do so, the Deputy Commissioner called upon the sureties to show cause why their bond should not be forfeited. Their Lordships held that: "in view of the clear provision in the bond the terms of which being penal in nature must be very strictly construed, it could not be said that the contingencies contemplated by the parties had occurred. There was no judgment or order of the Judicial Committee upholding either in part or in whole the sentence against the accused. As the terms of the bond so construed could not be said to have been fulfilled, the penalty stipulated had not been incurred. It must therefore be held that the proceedings taken against the sureties were entirely misconceived." 8. It has been repeatedly held that there can be no forfeiture of penalty in a bail bond except on its own terms. Their liability must be determined by the agreement that is actually taken from the parties. (Vide the decisions in A. N. Bhattacharjee v. Emperor (AIR 1938 Patna 211); Bishambar Mohton v. Emperor (32 CriLJ 121 and 1942 Oudh 112)). Their liability must be determined by the agreement that is actually taken from the parties. (Vide the decisions in A. N. Bhattacharjee v. Emperor (AIR 1938 Patna 211); Bishambar Mohton v. Emperor (32 CriLJ 121 and 1942 Oudh 112)). The extent of the liability can, therefore, be determined by the terms and conditions of the bail bond. 9. A perusal of the bond in this case would show that the undertaking was only to produce the car on all days of the hearing of the case. The case has been disposed of, accused has been acquitted and final orders had been passed by the Magistrate under S.517 Cr. P. C. S.517 says that when an inquiry or trial is concluded, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise of any property produced before it, and sub clause (4) says that nothing in the section shall be deemed to prohibit any court from delivering any property under the provisions of sub-section (1) to any person on his executing a bond with or without sureties to the satisfaction of the court, engaging to restore such property to the court if the order made under the section is modified or set aside on appeal. 10. Here in this case the learned Magistrate ordered that the complainant in the case who is the respondent in Crl. R. P. 427/60 will have custody of the car till the matter was finally decided by the civil court. No fresh bond was taken from her and no bond has been taken from the sureties agreeing to this new provision in the final order. The bond which had been executed by the sureties engaging themselves to produce the property during the course of the trial had worked itself out and so cannot be forfeited. They have not committed any default in the fulfilment of the terms of the bond which they had executed. There is no provision in the bond to produce the car at any time ordered by the Magistrate and in the absence of such a provision it must be taken that their liability was limited to the final disposal of the case. There is no provision in the bond to produce the car at any time ordered by the Magistrate and in the absence of such a provision it must be taken that their liability was limited to the final disposal of the case. We are not prepared to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case has not been finally disposed of and that the criminal case must be deemed to be pending at the time when the Magistrate passed the orders under S.514. The order of the learned District Magistrate does not call for interference and has only to be confirmed. The revision petitions are dismissed.