JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - These are two connected revisions filed by a person who had stood surety for eight accused persons on executing a bail bond before the police during investigation of a criminal case. 2. Out of the eight accused persons who were released on bail by the police, seven accused persons were charge-sheeted on 6-5-1970 under Sections 147, 447 and 323, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate issued notice to the Petitioner to produce the accused persons on 3-7-1970. On that date the accused persons were found absent and the Petitioner was again noticed to produce the accused persons on 4-8-1970. As the accused persons were not produced on 4-8-1970 the bail bond executed by the Petitioner was forfeited and a proceeding u/s 514, Code of Criminal Procedure was started. On 22-7-1971 a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- was levied against the Petitioner. On appeal, the learned Addl. District Magistrate (judicial) found that five accused persons had already appeared and reduced the penalty to a sum of Rs. 1,500/-. On 9-2-1972 the Petitioner produced the other two accused persons and prayed for exemption from payment of penalty, but his prayer was rejected on 3-9-1973. A criminal revision preferred against that order before the learned A.D.M. (1) was dismissed on 10-9-1973. It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the bond is not in accordance with Section 499(1), Code of Criminal Procedure and is not enforceable in law. 3. The bail bond executed by the Petitioner on 18-1-1970 appears to be of a very vague and uncertain character. The name of the Court where the accused were required to appear has not been mentioned. The date on which the accused persons were required to appear has also not been mentioned. As provided in Section 499(1), Code of Criminal Procedure the bond is required to set out conditions that the accused who is ordered to be released on bail shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond. Non-mention of the date and place where the accused were required to appear render the bond ineffective. 4. I may in this connection refer to a decision of Vivian Bose, J (as he then was) in the case of Emperor v. Chintaram AIR 1936 Nag. Non-mention of the date and place where the accused were required to appear render the bond ineffective. 4. I may in this connection refer to a decision of Vivian Bose, J (as he then was) in the case of Emperor v. Chintaram AIR 1936 Nag. 243, wherein such a point had been debated and it was held as follows: Bail proceedings are special proceedings about which there are specific directions in the Code, and they must be strictly followed. Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure states that the time and place at which the accused is to appear must be mentioned in the bond. and Clause 2, of that section states that if the accused is to appear in some other Court the bond must expressly say so. It is not open to Courts to depart from these express provisions. It was contended before his Lordship that the plea regarding vagueness of the bond was not taken in the first Court but was taken for the first time in revision, and it was accordingly urged that the surety himself thought that he was liable and so did not put forward the grounds urged in revision. Repelling this contention his Lordship held as follows: What the surety thought or did not think is immaterial, for the terms of a surety bond have to be determined by the language used in the bond itself. Also it is not for a surety to show that the bond is illegal, but for the Crown to show that the document it wishes to enforce against him is one which can be so enforced, under the law. By reason of vagueness of the conditions regarding time and place where the accused were required to appear, I hold that the bond is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure and is, therefore, not enforceable in law. 4. In the result, the criminal revisions are allowed and the order forfeiting the bail bond is set aside. The penalty if already realised be refunded to the Petitioner. Final Result : Allowed