JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Basant Singh had stood surely of Rs. 3000/- each for Jangir Singh and Kashmir Singh who were facing trial in case no. 1288/75 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No 2, Hanumangarh. On October 20, 1971 the two accused remained absent. Notice was issued to the surety Basant Singh to show cause why the amount of surety bonds should not be forfeited. Basant Singh put in appearance and stated that he tried his best to trace out the accused but could not succeed. By the order dated September 14, 1976, the learned Magistrate forfieited Rs. 1500/- from each surety bond i.e. to Rs.3000/- in all and ordered for issuance of warrant of attachment of the property of the petitioner in case of his failing to deposit the amount in case. Petitioner Basant Singh went in appeal in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh.Learned appellate court dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated June 24, 1978. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as the hail bonds were not there on the record the order of forfeiture of the amount of the bail bonds should not have been passed. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand urged that the appellant had aditted to have stood surety for Rs. 3000/- for Kashmir Singh and Jangir Singh each and, therefore, non-availability or the Nil bonds executed by the petitioner would not help him. 3. This is not in dispute that the bail bonds were not there before the two courts below. The question is whether merely because Basant Singh has admitted to have stood surety, the amount could be forfeited. In the case of Kishan Lal v. State of U P., 1979 Cr.L.J. 1429, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was mentioned in the surety bond that the accused would be produced by the surety but the date on which and the time and the court in which the accused was to be produced were not mentioned in the surety bonds. In such circumstances it was held that the bond could neither be forfeited nor any penalty be imposed on the surety, as the bond was unenforceable. 4. The case in hand stands on still better footing so far as the interest of the petitioner is concerned. In such circumstances it was held that the bond could neither be forfeited nor any penalty be imposed on the surety, as the bond was unenforceable. 4. The case in hand stands on still better footing so far as the interest of the petitioner is concerned. In the absence of the surety bonds, their contents cannot be known. As the order of the appellate court shows the case was formerly in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court and then on transfer reached the court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Hanumangarh. The condition of the surety bonds are not known. Though the petitioner had admitted in his reply that he stood surety for Jangir Singh and Kashmir Singh for Rs. 3000/- each. What were the conditions and terms of the bond he does not state. In such circumstances the petitioner could not have been penalised on this bald admission of this type in absence of surety bond being there on the record to give him occasion to put his case. The forfeiture of the bail bonds being penal in nature strict proof about their conditions and the failure to fulfil those conditions should be proved. 5. In view of the above discussion, the surety bonds not being placed on record weakens the case against the petitioner. 6. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate forfeiting the amount and the judgment of the appellate court affirming the same are set aside.Revision allowed. *******