JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - All the accused persons excepting accused Pranakrushna Jena were present in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, on 6-12-]965. Petitioners Jagannath Mandhata and Ramachandra Samal were bailors for accused Pranakrushna Jena. Each of the accused had been directed to give bail for Rs. 200/ - only. The Petitioners executed a surety bond on 3-11-1965 for Rs. 200/ -. The terms of the bond were that the bailbond would be forfeited if the accused was absent, or if the securities did not produce the accused in the Court on the date fixed. Out of the to bailors Ramachandra did not attend Court and Jagannath filed an application for adjourning the case on the ground that accused Pranakrushna was bed-ridden with double pneumonia and could not attend the Court on that day. The application for time was rejected on the very day, the bail bond of accused Pranakrushna was cancelled and the amount under the bond executed by the two bailors was forfeited to the State. A non bailable warrant was issued for the production of accused Pranakrushna on 8.12.1965. Against this order passed on 5-12-1965, the revision has been filed. 2. Mr. Jena advanced a number of contentions challenging the legality of the order. One of the grounds was that before forfeiting the bail bond the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have given notice to the bailors as to why the amount under the bond should not be forfeited, and if the latter failed to show came, then only the Court would proceed to recover the money. Though the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the learned advocate for the accused and one of the bailors, no opportunity was given to the bailors to show sufficient cause, and as such, the order of forfeiture is illegal. 3. The aforesaid contention is well founded. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the other contentions. Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 80 far as is relevant runs thus 514. 3. The aforesaid contention is well founded. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the other contentions. Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 80 far as is relevant runs thus 514. (1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of the Court of a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid. (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the movable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead. 4. The aforesaid provisions clearly show that it is essential to give notice to the bailors as to why the amount under the bond should not) be paid before they become liable to pay the amount of the bond forfeited. If the bailors failed to show sufficient cause, the Court could proceed to recover the money. This is concluded by Golom Mehdi v. State of Rajasthan1. 5. In this case the Petitioners were not called upon to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited. One of the bailors filed an application for adjournment of the case as the accused was bed-ridden. Before forfeiting the bond, the bailors should have been given time and called upon to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited. The learned Additional Sessions Judge decided that matter on the very day without giving opportunity to the Petitioners to show cause. The order forfeiting the bond cannot, therefore, be supported. It is accordingly sat aside. It is, however, open to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after giving opportunity to the Petitioners to show cause, to again forfeit the bond in case the causes shown do not appear to be sufficient. 6. Though the amount of the bond was Its. 200/-, the Petitioners were called upon to pay Rs. 400/-. Such a mistake should not have been committed. 6. Though the amount of the bond was Its. 200/-, the Petitioners were called upon to pay Rs. 400/-. Such a mistake should not have been committed. In view of the fact that the order forfeiting the bond has been set aside, the amount, if paid should be refunded. The criminal revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed