JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - Bahal Singh and Karnail Singh have filed this appeal purporting to be under Sections 410/515/ 439, Cr.P.C. against an order of Temporary Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in criminal miscellaneous case No. 1 of 1962 imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 100/- each. 2. Learned counsel has not been able to show any provision under which an appeal lies against an order of the Sessions Judge imposing penalty in a proceeding under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, learned counsel says that this appeal may be treated as an application in revision under Section 439, Cr, P.C. I, therefore, proceed to treat it as a revision application and decide the same on that footing. 3. It appears that one Jeewan Singh along with others was tried in the court of Temporary Sessions Judge, Pilibhit (Sessions Trial No. 42/59) under Section 120-B/467/468, I. P.C. In that trial the appellants had stood sureties for Jeewan Singh for his attendance in court on the dates fixed in the trial, and each of them had executed bonds for Rs. 2,000/ in favour of the Government binding themselves to pay the amount of the bond in case of Jeewan Singh making default in his appearance in court on any date. 4. From the order under appeal it appears that Jeewan Singh absented himself on 25-4-1962 which was the date fixed for judgment in the trial. Then another date 28-4-1962 was fixed for delivery of judgment and notices dated 26-4-1962 were issued to the two sureties Karnail Singh and Bahal Singh informing them the date fixed for delivery of judgment asking them to produce the accused on that date. It was also mentioned in these notices that if they fail to produce him then legal action would be taken against them. 5. On 5-5-1962 an application was presented by the two sureties before the learned Sessions Judge in which they stated that the notices asking them to produce the accused were served on them on 4-5-1962 and as the accused had gone to Punjab to see his ailing mother they should be allowed one month's time for producing him before the Court. On this application the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order:- "The sureties applied for time to produce the accused. One opportunity is allowed. On this application the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order:- "The sureties applied for time to produce the accused. One opportunity is allowed. Put up on 31-5-1962." It appears that on 12-5-1962 the sureties produced the accused in Court. However, on 31-5-1962 the Learned Sessions Judge passed an order directing that a sum of Rs. 100/-each be realised from the two sureties as penalty. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the order imposing penalty is wholly illegal inasmuch as notices to show cause were not served on the sureties. There is force in this argument. 6. From the narration of facts as stated above it is apparent that the sureties were asked to produce the accused on 28-5-1962, but the notices were actually served on them on 4.5.1962. On 5.5.1962 the learned Sessions Judge allowed them time till 31.5.1962 to produce the accused but the sureties were able to produce him on 12.5.1962 before the Court. It is also apparent that no notice was given to the sureties asking them to show cause why a penalty be not imposed on them. No doubt when the accused absented himself on 25.4.1962 the surety bond stood forfeited. Even then under the law it was incumbent on the learned Judge to have served notices on the sureties to show cause why they should not be asked to pay the penalty. 7. As the notices served on the appellants only asked them to produce accused on a particular date and did not ask them to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on them, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge imposing the penalty of Rs. 100/- on each of them is illegal. 8. In the case of Ghulam Mehdi v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1185 it was held by the Supreme Court that, "Sec. 514 B of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that before a surety becomes liable to pay the amount forfeited it is necessary to give notices why amount should not be paid and if he fails to show sufficient cause only then can the Court proceed to recover the money." The result is that this revision application is allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 31-5-1962 imposing a penalty of Rs. 100/- on each of the appellants is quashed.