JUDGMENT D.N. Mehta, J. - The Petitioner herein Leela Daulatram Uttamchandani has filed this Criminal Revision Application impugning the Order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, dated 4-10-1983 where under the Petitioner was called upon to furnish an additional security of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety or in cash. The Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the amount of fine of Rs. 82,000/- on furnishing such security or bond. 2. A few facts may briefly be stated at this stage: - On 12th January 1981 the Petitioner herein, who will hereinafter be referred to as the Accused, arrived at the Sahar Airport from Manila. On a search of her person and baggage certain jewellery was discovered. Some pieces of jewellery and gold were found concealed in the false bottom of one of her suitcases. The Accused was arrested and was released on bail of Rs. 50,000/-. Her passport was impounded by the Customs Authorities. Thereafter she was placed on trial before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his Judgment and Order dated 15th May, 1981 found the Accused guilty of the offences under section 135(1)(a)(ii) and section 135(l)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, and section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The Accused was sentenced to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- on each count under the Customs Act and was further sentenced under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act to pay a fine of Rs. 42,000/-. Thus the aggregate fine imposed on the Accused was Rs. 82,000/-. The Accused suffered one day's simple imprisonment as also paid the fine of Rs. 82,0001-. 4. The Accused, being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 15th May, 1981, filed an Appeal in the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his Judgment and Order dated 16-4-1982 allowed the Appeal of the Accused and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further directed that the fine, if paid, be refunded to the Accused. 5. On 19th April, 1983, the Accused made an Application to the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for refund of the amount of Rs. 82,000/- paid by her as fine. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further directed that the fine, if paid, be refunded to the Accused. 5. On 19th April, 1983, the Accused made an Application to the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for refund of the amount of Rs. 82,000/- paid by her as fine. At the hearing of this Application of the Accused on 27-4-1983 the learned Customs Prosecutor informed the Court that an Appeal had been preferred to the High Court against the Order of the Court of Sessions, being Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 1982. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was also informed that the said Appeal had been admitted by the High Court exparte on 7-12-1982 and the Court had ordered action against the Accused under section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pertinent to point out at this stage that at the time of the admission of the Appeal, the High Court was pleased not to grant a stay of the Order for refund of the fine passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The hearing of the Application was thereafter deferred. 6. Pursuant to the Order of the High Court the Accused surrendered to the Court and was enlarged on bail of Rs. 50,000/-pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal in the High Court. 7. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his Order dated 4th October, 1983 allowed the Accused to withdraw the amount of Rs. 82,000/- paid by her as fine on condition that she would furnish additional security of Rs. 50,000/- by way of cash, bond or a surety. It is against this Order that the Accused has now filed the present Criminal Revision Application. 8. It may be pointed out that at the hearing of the Application for refund of the fine in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it was argued by the learned Customs Prosecutor that when the High Court passed an Order under section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it implied that the Order for refund of the fine was also stayed. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, however, rejected that argument and stated that since the High Court had not granted a stay of the Order for refund of the fine passed by the Sessions Court, it could not be stated that the Order of the Sessions Court had been stayed. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, however, rejected that argument and stated that since the High Court had not granted a stay of the Order for refund of the fine passed by the Sessions Court, it could not be stated that the Order of the Sessions Court had been stayed. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate came to the following conclusion: - "That being the position, it appears to me that this Court is bound to respect and carry out the direction given by superior Court, namely, the Sessions Court for refunding the fine amount to the accused-appellant." I am of the view that the conclusion of the learned Magistrate is correct and that unless an Order of Stay for the refund of the fine has been passed by the High Court, the Accused is entitled to apply for a refund. 9. Shri Jagtiani, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Accused, has submitted that once the Court of Sessions ordered the refund of the fine to the Accused, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was bound by that Order and he ought to have passed an Order for the refund of that amount of fine without imposing any condition. Shri Jagtiani pointed out that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had relied on the provisions of Section 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which according the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate empowered the Court to order further bail or security when the first amount of bail or security was found insufficient. According to Shri Jagtiani this provision cannot apply to the facts in the present case. According to Shri Jagtiani this provision would come into play only if the surety was found to be insufficient through mistake, fraud or otherwise. 10. In order to appreciate Shri Jagtiani's submission, it will be relevant at this stage to set out the provisions of section 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Shri Jagtiani this provision would come into play only if the surety was found to be insufficient through mistake, fraud or otherwise. 10. In order to appreciate Shri Jagtiani's submission, it will be relevant at this stage to set out the provisions of section 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 443 provides: "If, through mistake, fraud, or otherwise, insufficient sureties have been accepted, or if they afterwards become insufficient, the Court may issue a warrant of arrest directing that the person released on bail be brought before it and may order him to find sufficient sureties, and, on his failing so to do, may commit him to jail." Now, on a reading of the provisions of section 443 it becomes clear that it applies to cases where it is found that the surety is insufficient through mistake, fraud or otherwise. In the instant case, the Accused had surrendered to the Court pursuant to the Order passed by the High Court under section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She was enlarged on bail of Rs. 50,000/-. It appears the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found that this amount was not sufficient to ensure that the Accused would return to this country in the event of the Appeal being allowed. Assuming that the High Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Customs Authorities and the conviction and sentence of the Accused were restored, it would mean that the Accused would have to pay the fine of Rs. 82,000/-. The provisions of section 443 envisage a contingency where through mistake, fraud or otherwise it was found by the Court that the surety furnished by the Accused was insufficient. In the instant case, there was no question of a mistake or fraud or otherwise. The word "otherwise" must be interpreted ejusdem generis. Shri Jagtiani is justified in his submission when he states that the provisions of section 443 would not be applicable to the instant case. In view of the order for refund of fine passed by the Court of Sessions and in view of the fact that the High Court had not granted any stay of the Order passed by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not justified in imposing a fresh condition for the refund of the fire. In view of the order for refund of fine passed by the Court of Sessions and in view of the fact that the High Court had not granted any stay of the Order passed by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not justified in imposing a fresh condition for the refund of the fire. The said Order, in so far as it imposed the condition of a fresh security of Rs. 50,000/- was to my mind erroneous. The Order of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, to the extent that it imposed a fresh condition for furnishing further security, will have to be set aside. 11. In the circumstances, the Rule is made absolute. The amount of fine of Rs. 82,000/- will be refunded to the Accused or her Constituted Attorney, upon proper discharge. Rule made absolute