JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition, in revision, against the order of the Additional District Magistrate Judicial maintaining the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Athgarh, dated 15-6-1962 taking coercive steps to forfeit the bail bond executed by the Petitioner and (another person), for failure to produce one Karnal Singh who had been prosecuted in his Court for an offence u/s 9(80) of the Opium Act. 2. The bail bond was actually forfeited on 19-7-1961, and the bailor was caned upon to show cause why he should not deposit the entire amount forfeited. The bailor showed cause and undertook to produce the accused. The show cause was ultimately rejected on 28-2-1962 and the amount was forfeited to the State of Orissa. Then coercive steps such as issue of distress warrant were taken against him. The learned Additional District Magistrate maintained the order of the S.D.M. forfeiting the bond and imposing penalty. 3. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr.B. Mohapatra for the Petitioner against the forfeiture of the bond on the ground that the original bond executed by the bailor was in favour of His Majesty the King-Emperor of India and not in favour of the State. There was also no clear undertaking given in the bond, to bind himself to produce the accused. The bond was as follows: 2. Janardan Naik, son of Basu Naik of Khuntakata, P.S. Athgarh...surety for the said accused Karnal Singh...shall attend at the Court of the S.D.M., Athgarh on every day of the preliminary enquiry into the offence charged against him and should the case be sent for trial by the Court of Session that he shall appear before the said court to answer the charge against him and in case of his making default therein, to forfeit to His Majesty the King-Emperor of India a sum of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) only.... This bond does not conform to the form prescribed by the Code (see Form 42 of Schedule 5) which expressly say, after the adaptations made in consequence of the Indian independence, that the surety must bind himself to forfeit to Government (here Government of Orissa). The expression his Majesty the King-Emperor of India is out of date. 4. A similar question came up for decision before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammed Sayeed. The expression his Majesty the King-Emperor of India is out of date. 4. A similar question came up for decision before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammed Sayeed. There they held that a bond like the present one was not a bond under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that no order of forfeiture can be passed on the basis of such a bond. Though the learned Additional District Magistrate has observed that this Supreme Court case is distinguishable he has not given any valid reasons for saying so. I must, following the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, hold that the bond in question does not conform to the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the order of forfeiture cannot be maintained. 5. The revision is allowed, the order dated 28-2-1962 forfeiting the bond of the Petitioner is set aside and all coercive proceedings taken to realise the amount of the bond forfeited are quashed. Properties of the Petitioner is seized should be released. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed