JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2. Ganganagar dated April 1, 1987 and that of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate dated June 4, 1984. 2. Petitioner Bhanwarlal was standing trial for offence under Section 457, I.P.C. and was on bail. He had furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 4000/- and surety in the like amount for his appearance before the court during the course of hearing of the matter. On January 2, 1980, he absented himself. Therefore, his bail bonds were forfeited. Later. a separate case under section 456. I.P.C. was registered against him vide order dated Nov. 3, 1980 and a notice was issued to him. It does not appear whether that notice had ever been served upon him or not, but he appeared before court on March 5, 1981 and the proceedings were got noted from him. He wanted time to file reply to the notice and several opportunities were granted to him, but he did not file any reply and, ultimately. on Feb. 20, 1982, he again absented himself, wereupon, the learned Magistrate, after hearing the learned A. P. P. directed the recovery of whole of the amount of personal bond. Thereafter, he moved an application for remission in the recovery of the amount of personal bond. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, rejected that application by order dated June 4, 1984 stating that the conduct of the petitioner dis entitled him to any remission. It was, of course, mentioned that the original trial under section 457, I.P C. had already come to an end and he had been convicted and sentenced. I am informed by the learned counsel for the (sic) that on appeal, the sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced to that already undergone by him. Aggrieved of the order of the learned Magistrate dated June 4. 1984. petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, who partly allowed that appeal by this order dated April I. 1987 reducing the amount to be recovered to Rs. 1000/-Only. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up before this court. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and keeping in view the circumstances of the case. 1000/-Only. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up before this court. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and keeping in view the circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that the recovery of Rs. 1000/- from the petitioner would be harsh upon him and the amount still calls for further reduction It may be stated that both the courts have already found that the petitioner had stood trial for offence under Section 457. His absence for more than one year had of course delayed the trial ; but all the same, when thereafter Le had appeared and had been convicted and also suffered the sentence awarded to him, it would not be in the interest of justice to further burden him with the sum of Rs. 1000/-. It may also be pointed out that the proceedings for the recovery of the amount of personal bond also did not appear to be perfectly in order inasmuch as the notice directed to be issued to him for the recovery of the amount on Nov. 3, 1980 does not appear to have been served upon him and it was only on March 5, 1981 that he appeared in this matter also while he appeared in the criminal case under Section 457, Cr. P. C. (Sic IPC) before the same court and the fact that the proceedings for the recovery of the amount of personal bond was got noted from him. It is not clear as to exactly what was got noted. In any way, as already stated above, when the petitioner has already stood trial and has already undergone sentence awarded to him, the recovery of Rs. 1000/- would be harsh upon him. 4. I, therefore, partly allow this revision and reduce the amount to be recovered from the petitioner, of the personal bond, to Rs. 200/-, two hundred rupees only.Revision partly allowed. *******