JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Dhanapati Raj was convicted u/s 12 of the Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Baudh, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 600- on 25-5-1964. On 24-5-1964 the Petitioner became a surety for Dhanapati Raj for an amount of Ra. 1200- and executed a bond in Form No. XLII. The accused was directed to pay the fine on 15-6-1964. As the accused did not pay the fine in time, the bail bond was forfeited on 24-7-1964. It is to be noted that the bond should not have been taken in Form No. XLII but should have been in Form No. XXXVII-A as the accused had already been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine. On 24-7-1964, the Petitioner was called upon to show case why he should not pay the penalty prescribed in the bond. On 21-8-1964 the Petitioner filed an application for time to produce the accused. The application was rejected and the Petitioner was directed to pay the penalty of Rs. 1200-. Against this order, Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1964 was filed before the Additional District Ma.gistrate. This revision is a.gainst the appellate order dismissing the appeal. 2. Mr. Ghosh advanced two contentions (i) The bond having been executed in Form No. XLII and not in Form No. XXXVII-A, the Petitioner incurred no liability to pay the penalty under the bond, the terms of which must be strictly construed. (ii) Dhanapati having paid the fine, it was open to the Court at its discretion to remit a portion of the penalty u/s 514(5), Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Section 514, Crimina.l Procedure Code lays down the procedure 'on forfeiture of bond. There is no dispute, in this case, that the Petitioner executed the bond in Form No. XLII. This form has been prescribed under Sections 498 and 499 Criminal Procedure Code. This bond is to be executed by accused for attendance on every day of preliminary inquiry into an offence charged against him. There is no dispute, in this case, that the Petitioner executed the bond in Form No. XLII. This form has been prescribed under Sections 498 and 499 Criminal Procedure Code. This bond is to be executed by accused for attendance on every day of preliminary inquiry into an offence charged against him. The relevant portion of the form may be quoted: I hereby declare myself (or We jointly and severally declare ourselves and each of us) surety (or sureties) for the said (name) that he shall attend at the Court of on every day of the preliminary inquiry into the offence charged against him, and, should the case be sent trial by the Court of Session, that he shall be, and appear, before the said Court to answer the charge against him, and, in case of his making default therein, I bind myself (or we bind ourselves) to forfeit to Government the sum of Rs. (...) The surety executes the bond for performance of the obligations prescribed in the form. 4. Form No. XXXVII-A, on the other hand, is prescribed u/s 388, Code of Criminal Procedure which, relates to suspension of execution of sentence of imprisonment. The entire form may be quoted: WHEREAS I, (name), inhabitant of (place), have been sentenced to pay a fine of rupees and in default of payment thereof to undergo imprisonment for and whereas the Court has been pleased to order my release on condition of my executing a bond for my appearance on the following date (or dates) namely: I bind myself to appear before the Court of at ... O' clock on the following date (or dates) namely: ... and in case of making default herein, I bind myself to forfeit to Government' the sum of rupees .... Dated this. ..., ... ... day of ... ... ..., ... 19.; .... (Signature) Where a bond with sureties is to be executed, add: We do hereby declare ourselves for, the above named ... ... ... that he will appear before the Court of ... ... on the following date (or dates) namely: ... and, in case of his making default therein, we bind ourselves jointly and severally to forfeit to Government the sum of rupees. ... ... that he will appear before the Court of ... ... on the following date (or dates) namely: ... and, in case of his making default therein, we bind ourselves jointly and severally to forfeit to Government the sum of rupees. (Signature) This form is to be executed for the appearance of the accused after the case ends in a conviction and the accused has been sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment thereof, to undergo imprisonment. 5. Mr. Ghosh contends that the bond is a contract between the parties and its terms must be strictly enforced. In The State of Bihar Vs. M. Homi and Another it was held that the terms of the bond being penal in nature must be very strictly construed. In that particular case, the Provincial Government granted the prayer of the accused for suspension of the sentence subject to his furnishing security, the important term of which was to the effect: 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. Ultimately the case was heard by the Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed. The accused did not surrender in time. His bond was forfeited. The Supreme Court set aside the order of forfeiture on the ground that the terms of the bond must be strictly construed and that there being no decision of the Judicial Committee, it cannot be said that there was no surrender in time. The same view has been taken in The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammed Sayeed, and Janardan Naik v. state 30 C.L.T. 136 : J.L.R. 1963 Cutt 667. The basic underlying principle is that the bond is a contract, and when it prescribes a penal provision, it must be strictly construed. In the bond under Form No. XLII, the accused gave an undertaking to appear on each date of preliminary, inquiry and the surety undertook the obligation of presenting the accused in Court on those days. In this case, the trial had been concluded and there was no question of appearing on the dates of preliminary hearing. In the bond under Form No. XLII, the accused gave an undertaking to appear on each date of preliminary, inquiry and the surety undertook the obligation of presenting the accused in Court on those days. In this case, the trial had been concluded and there was no question of appearing on the dates of preliminary hearing. The accused was only to appear on different dates to pay the fine as the trial of the case had already been concluded. It is true that on 21-8-1964 the Petitioner applied for time to produce the accused. But application cannot stand as an estoppel against the Petitioner. It was made on an erroneous view of his own rights and cannot constitute the basis of an imposition of penalty. Nor can it enlarge the obligations prescribed in the bond. The Petitioner is, therefore, not liable to pay the penalty imposed upon him. 6. As the Petitioner succeeds on the first point, the second point need not be examined. 7. In the result, the order of the Magistrate imposing penalty of Rs. 1200- on the Petitioner is set aside and the revision is allowed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed