JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, J. - This appeal has been filed against the order dated October 15, 1985 passed by Sri H.P. Pathak, Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000 against each of the appellants and for realising the same under Section 446, Cr. P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case No. 6 of 1985. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State. The Sessions Trial, it appears, was fixed for June 25, 1985 aDd June 27, 1985, Appellant No. 1 Smt. Beena, wife of Vijai Nand Kurmi, was an accused in the said case under Section 302, I.P.C. It transpires from perusal of para 5 of the order itself that admittedly Smt. Beena had delivered a female child on June 14, 1985. The learned Judge has himself observed that after delivery of female child she must have been quite week on June 25, 1985 and June 27, 1985 for appearance before the Court, still the learned Judge has imposed 1/4 of the penalty by way of forfeiture of the personal bond executed by Smt. Beena and surety bonds executed by Bhagwati Prasad and Ram Khelawan, appellate Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. On give my anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances I do not think that any case was made out in view of the finding recorded by the learned Judge himself for non-appearance of Smt. Beena. In villages people are not very much conversant with the legal procedures and if any omission has been made in not informing the learned lawyer with respect to non-appearance it cannot be said that non-appearance on the part of Smt. Beena was deliberate. She must have been in family way and, therefore, if she failed to appear before the Court on some particular dates it did not call for exercise of such an extreme discretion. 3. I accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order dated October 15, 1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. If fine has already been deposited it shall be refunded to the appellants. 4. On payment of necessary charges copy of the order may be issued by tomorrow.