ORDER D.P. Uniyal, J. - One Puttu Lal was convicted u/s 148 while his 16 companions were convicted u/s 147 IPC. The Magistrate gave the benefit of Section 4 of the UP First Offenders' Probation Act to them on condition that each of them shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 500 with a surety in the like amount. The accused persons executed personal bonds as well as surety bonds as directed. However, as the bonds were unstamped the accused were directed to affix necessary fee payable on them and the Magistrate passed the following order: Let the court fee; amounting to Rs. 25. 50P be realised through attachment of moveables as fine u/s 547 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The Applicants filed a revision challenging the legality of the magistrate's order and the learned Sessions Judge thereupon made the above reference to this Court recommending that the order of the Magistrate be quashed. 3. On behalf of the State reliance was placed on Article 6 of Schedule II of the UP Court Fees Act which prescribes fee payable on bonds and other instruments of obligation given in pursuance of an order made by a court of magistrate under any section of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and not otherwise provided for by this Act. It will be noticed that this Article has no application to bonds executed under the UP First Offenders Act. In this connection support was sought to be derived from Section 8 of the UP First Offenders Probation Act, 1938 which reads as follows: The provisions of Sections 122, 126, 126-A, 406-A, B and C, 514, 514-, 514-Band 515 Code of Criminal Procedure shall so far as may be, apply in the case of sureties offered and bonds given under this Act, as if they had been offered and given under Ch. VIII of the Code. True, certain provisions of the Code have been made applicable to the UP First Offenders Act. But none of them relates to payment of fee on recognisances or bonds executed under the UP First Offenders Probation Act. On the other hand, those provisions merely enumerate the powers of magistrate to accept, reject and discharge surety bonds and to punish breaches of the same. 4. But none of them relates to payment of fee on recognisances or bonds executed under the UP First Offenders Probation Act. On the other hand, those provisions merely enumerate the powers of magistrate to accept, reject and discharge surety bonds and to punish breaches of the same. 4. Section 562 Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the court to release certain convicted offenders on probation of good conduct, was repealed on the coming into force of the UP First Offenders Act, 1938 and the latter is a complete Code in itself and is governed by its own provisions. There being no provision in the UP First Offenders Probation Act requiring a surety to affix court fee stamp on a bond executed by him, the Magistrate had no power to order its recovery as fine. 5. For the reasons given above, I accept the reference and quash the order of the Magistrate directing the payment of Rs. 25. 50P by way of court fee stamp.