JUDGMENT 1. - This petition was taken up for hearing today with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The principal submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an order directing forfeiture of the amount of surety bonds was passed by the learned District Magistrate, Jaisalmer without giving notice to the petitioners and the whole amount of the surety bonds was directed to be forfeited without any justification. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners Danmal and Topumal entered into surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively on December 28,1972 having admitted receiving possession of she-camel. However, the surety bonds were ordered to be forfeited by the learned District Magistrate, Jaisalmer without giving due notice to the petitioners to show cause why the surety bonds be not forfeited. If such notices would have been given, it would have been open to the petitioners to submit their explanations and to show cause before the learned Magistrate as to why the petitioners were unable to produce the she-camels. The petitioners could have also produced some evidence in support of their explanations. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor hag not been able to defend the forfeiture of the surety bonds to the full extent without allowing the petitioners an opportunity to submit their explanations. It would have been just and proper, if the learned District Magistrate considered that the petitioners lad committing breach of the conditions of the surety bonds, he should have given notices to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why the surety bonds be not forfeited. The learned counsel for the petitioners is right in submitting that on receipt of such notices the petitioners could have submitted their explanations and could have brought out some reasonable ground for the alleged breach of the conditions of the surety bonds. Lack of opportunity to show cause appears to have caused prejudice to the petitioners. The lead Additional Sessions Judge has held that the requirement of calling upon the petitions to show cause regarding forfeiture of the surety bonds was fulfilled, as the petitions were present in person along with their counsel at the time-when the learned District Magistrate passed the order forfeiting the surety bonds. The lead Additional Sessions Judge has held that the requirement of calling upon the petitions to show cause regarding forfeiture of the surety bonds was fulfilled, as the petitions were present in person along with their counsel at the time-when the learned District Magistrate passed the order forfeiting the surety bonds. In my view, the presence of the petitioners at the time when the order of forfeiting surety bonds was passed cannot be said to fulfil the requirement of giving sufficient opportunity for showing cat The petitioners should have been given notices and reasonable time to show cause, and also to produce evidence in support of the explanations that they might hat furnished. In the absence of proper notice to show cause and reasonable opportunity for doing so, the proceedings regarding forfeiture of surety bonds are vitiated and deserve to be set aside. 5. I, therefore, accept the revision petition, set aside the orders passed the learned District Magistrate, Jaisalmer dated January 30, 1973 and that of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated March 25, 1976 regarding forfeiture of surety bonds of the petitioners. The learned, District Magistrate would, however,' be free to give fresh notices to the petitioners in respect of forfeiture of surety bond; filed by them on December 28, 1972, in case he considers it proper to do so. Sd/- Dwarka Prasad, J.Revision Accepted. *******