JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition of accused Prithvi Raj is directed against the order of learned District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, dated May 17, 1971, by which he upheld the order for the recovery of Rs. 500/- from the forfeited personal bond of the accused for a sum of Rs. 5000/-. 2. It may be mentioned that the accused did not appear in the trial court on August 13, 1968, and his bond for Rs. 5000/- was therefore forfeited. He was served with a notice and he filed a reply stating that he could not appear on August 13, 1968, because of illness. As no evidence was led in proof of that contention, the Magistrate concerned ordered the recovery of Rs. 500/-. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused could not appear on August 13, 1968 because of his illness, and that there was no justification for ordering the recovery of any part of the forfeited bond. This argument is untenable for two reasons. Firstly, the accused has taken the plea in his petition that he could appear because of the illness of his wife which upset his mind. The inconsistency in the plea shows that the contention about the petitioner's illness on August 13, 1968 did not deserve to be accepted at the hands of the learned Magistrate. Secondly, it was for the petitioner, if he so desired, to lead evidence to prove that he could not appear in the trial court on August 13, 1968 because of his illness, but he did not lead any evidence at all. There is therefore, nothing wrong if the learned Magistrate ordered that the bond should be forfeited and the amount should be recovered from the petitioner. 4. It has however, been argued that as the petitioner was standing trial in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for a petty offence of not holding a proper transistor licence, an order should not have been made for the recovery of Rs. 500/-. It appears that, looking to the nature for the offence, it would have been sufficient if an order had been made for recovery of Rs. 200/- instead of Rs. 500/-, on account of the forfeited personal bond. 5. 500/-. It appears that, looking to the nature for the offence, it would have been sufficient if an order had been made for recovery of Rs. 200/- instead of Rs. 500/-, on account of the forfeited personal bond. 5. The revision petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nimbahera, dated November 21, 1968 is modified to the extent that a sum of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two hundred) will be recoverable from the forfeited personal bond of the accused instead of Rs. 500/-. *******