Short Note : This Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the panel Advocate and perused the record. It may be noted that according to S.499 Cr. P.C. (old) the surety bond must contain the condition that the accused shall attend at a particular time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the Police Officer or the Court as the case may be. In the instant case the surety bond executed by the applicant does not mention the date on which he was bound to produce the accused in the Court. Besides that the name of the Court was also not mentioned. It is true that in the blank space left after the word Nyayalaya the word Shriman was written and from that it may be inferred that the applicant undertook to keep the accused person in the Court of Magistrate First Class, Narayangarh, in whose favour the bond was executed. However, when the first date on which the accused was to be produced was not mentioned, it could not be said that the applicant was bound to produce the accused on 7-3-1972. On perusal of the order-sheet of the trial Court it appears that on 23-11-1971 the case was adjourned to 30-12-1971. It is not known what happened on that day because no order sheet on 30-12-1971 was recorded. Abruptly the case as taken up on 7-3-1972 and the accused was found to be absent. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had the knowledge that the case was to be taken up on 7-3-1972 and that he was bound to produce the accused on that day in the Court. The applicant, therefore, cannot be penalised for the absence of the accused on 7-3-1972, Jeetmal v. State of M.P., 1957 JLJ 895, Emperor v. Chintaram, AIR 1936 Nag. 243, referred to. Revision allowed.