JUDGMENT 1. - The facts which are material may be shortly stated here. Amolak Chand, the petitioner herein, lodged a report with the police in November, 1975 complaining that some culprit or culprits had broken into his shop and committed theft of some cloth therefrom. The police registered a case under section 457 and 380 IPC. During the investigation on January 1, 1976, the police recovered the cloth, alleged to have bee.' stolen from the petitioner's shop. The accused in the case were sent up for trial on January 18, 1976. During the pendency of the trial, the learned Magistrate ordered the cloth to be delivered to the petitioner on his executing a bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- undertaking to produce the cloth in the court as and when required. 2. The trial remained pending for several years and was still pending in May, 1983. It appears that on some date prior to May 16, 1983 the learned Magistrate issued a notice to the petitioner requiring him to produce the cloth on May 16, 1983. The petitioner entered appearance in the court on the appointed date, but did not produce the cloth on May 16, 1983. The learned Magistrate thereupon passed a short order on May 16, 1983, itself stating that by reason of non-production of the cloth, the petitioner had forfeited the amount of the bond. He further directed that the petitioner was being given one month's time to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,0( 0/- at his own request. 3. Aggrieved by the Magistrate's order dated May 16, 1983, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Tonk. By his order dated May 2, 1984 the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has come to this court with an application under section 397 read with section 401 Cr. PC for an order quashing the impugned order, dated, May 16, 1983, requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount of the forfeited bond. 4. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, I am of opinion that the impugned order dated May 16, 1983 passed by the learned Magistrate cannot possibly be sustained. This is because the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of section 446 Cr. PC. 4. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, I am of opinion that the impugned order dated May 16, 1983 passed by the learned Magistrate cannot possibly be sustained. This is because the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of section 446 Cr. PC. A perusal of section 446 would show that there is a clear distinction between the order of forfeiture and an order requiring the person concerned to pay the penalty which may be assessed as a consequence of the forfeiture. Paragraph 3 of section 446 would show that after the amount of the bond is ordered to be forfeited, the court has to give the person concerned an opportunity to pay the amount of such penalty as may be assessed or to show cause why the same should not be paid. In the instant case the learned Magistrate after directing forfeiture of the amount proceeded directly to the issuance of the order that the amount be paid within a month. As required by section 446, he ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity to deposit the said amount or to show cause why the same should not be paid. This view of section 446 is supported by authority reported in Ghulam Mehdi v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 1185 . Their Lordships held in the cited case as follows : "Section 514 Cr. PC shows that before a surety becomes liable to pay the amount of the bond forfeited it is necessary to give notice why the amount should not be paid and if he fails to show sufficient cause only then can the court proceed to recover the money. When he opportunity has been given to a surety show cause why he should not be made to pay, the proceedings can not be said to be in accordance with law and should therefore be quashed." As already stated, no opportunity had been given to the petitioner in the instant case to show cause why the amount of the forfeited bond should not be paid to by him. The impugned order dated May 16, 1983 must therefore be set aside. 5. I would accordingly allow this revision petition set aside the order dated May 16, 1983, and remand the case to the learned Magistrate to decide the controversy afresh in the light of the observations made above.Revision allowed. The impugned order dated May 16, 1983 must therefore be set aside. 5. I would accordingly allow this revision petition set aside the order dated May 16, 1983, and remand the case to the learned Magistrate to decide the controversy afresh in the light of the observations made above.Revision allowed. *******