JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:---The petition and the revision application are both disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners are husband and wife, who have stood sureties for the accused by name Menon in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each. The said Menon was released on bail in April 1983. He was charged with offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 3. After his release on bail the accused did appear on various dates before trial Court when the remand proceedings were pending. 4. In the month of December 1953 the accused applied to the trial Magistrate for leave to proceed abroad for two months. The trial Judge accorded the permission only for a period of two months subject to furnishing additional sureties. The petitioners complied with the said condition and the accused went abroad. After two months the accused returned to India and also was produced before the trial Magistrate. The perusal of the record shows his appearance on subsequent dates particularly in the months of November, December 1985. Then the additional surety bonds for two months were duly complied with without any default, Consequently they are deemed to be discharged. 5. It appears that sometime in January 1985 the accused instead of seeking leave of the trial Magistrate, approached the Enforcement Directorate for permission to go abroad again and the said Department granted the permission to the accused persons. 6. Now the permission was granted without the knowledge or consent of petitioners. This pleading of the petitioners in the Writ petition is not controverted by the Department. It is apparent that the accused has played mischief or fraud upon the Court as well as his sureties. 7. It further appears that on 3-7-85 the accused was absent before the Court and hence on application by the Enforcement Directorate the trial Court issued show cause notice to the petitioner sureties why the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each should not be recovered from them in view of the forfeiture of their bonds for default or production of the accused. 8. The petitioners were shocked to hear of the absence of the accused and requested for time to produce the accused. Time was granted. In spite of best efforts of the petitioners the accused could not be produced. The efforts are well established by the various documents annexed to the petition. 8. The petitioners were shocked to hear of the absence of the accused and requested for time to produce the accused. Time was granted. In spite of best efforts of the petitioners the accused could not be produced. The efforts are well established by the various documents annexed to the petition. They were also able to locate the wherabout of the accused. The petitioners also sought help of several Government authorities to secure his attendance here. Moreover the trial Court on 2-1-86 directed the issue of distress warrant to recover the forfeited amounts from the petitioners. Hence the petition. 9. The criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners because the appeal carried by them before the Sessions Judge is also rejected. The original records and papers were earlier called for and returned. 10. Upon perusal of the R P as also the annexures it is apparent that the accused was permitted to leave India without the knowledge or consent of the sureties. The accused has thus left India and has gone beyond the physical control of the petitioners sureties for no fault of theirs. This averment on behalf of the petitioners is not controverted. The trial Court as also the appeal Court have also found that genuine and bona fide attempts were made by the sureties to procure the presence of the accused. 11. The contention that in December 83 permission was granted to the accused to go abroad for two months subject to sureties furnishing additional bonds and that they had complied with the same cannot be disputed in view of the appearance of the accused till November 1984. It appears that permission was again granted to the accused to go abroad without the consent of the sureties and hence it is but natural that the sureties find it beyond their control to produce the accused in Court. 12. Section 446 of the Criminal Procedure lays down the procedure to be followed when a bond is forfeited. If the surety bond is for appearance then upon being satisfied that a default has been caused the Court can forfeit the bond and issue a show cause notice to the surety why the amount of penalty should not be recovered from him. If the surety bond is for appearance then upon being satisfied that a default has been caused the Court can forfeit the bond and issue a show cause notice to the surety why the amount of penalty should not be recovered from him. Sub-clause (2) of section 446 further provides that if sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under the Code. 13. Thus the order of the recovery of penalty amount in respect of a forfeited bond has to be passed only if the Court is not satisfied about sufficient cause on the part of the surety. 14. In the instant case the trial Court also the Appeal Court has found that the sureties had made their best efforts to procure the attendance of the accused. They have however not cared to notice that the accused, on a second occasion was permitted to go abroad without any consent of the sureties. The courts below have therefore not applied their mind to the aspect that the accused had gone beyond reasonable physical or accessible control of the petitioners for no fault of their part. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the petitioner sureties have shown sufficient cause for non-appearance of the accused and their inability to produce him for no fault of theirs. Hence under section 446(3) which gives discretion to remit such part of the penalty I hereby direct that instead of recovery of Rs. 50,000/- each from the petitioners as directed by the trial Judge the petitioners be ordered to pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) each. The balance of the penalty is remitted. 16. The rule is made party absolute as above. No separate order is passed in Criminal Revision Application, which stands disposed of. Rule made partly absolute. -----