JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur, on 30.1.1986 in S.C. No. 18 of 1984 forfeiting the bail bonds of the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 and directing issuance of fine cheques for realisation of bail amounts. 2. Facts. The Appellant, Purna Chandra Pradhan and Respondent No. 2, Sukuria Pradhan were the bailors of accused Bijoy Kumar Parida in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1984 of the Court of Session, Berhampur. The case was posted to 30.1.1986. On that day all the accused persons were present except accused Bijoy Kumar Parida, Mr. K.A. Das, Advocate, appearing for him filed a petition under, Section 317 Code of Criminal Procedure for representation of the above named accused for the day. The learned Sessions Judge, however, refused the petition on the ground that this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 791 of 1985 while granting bail imposed some conditions, one of which was that accused Bijoy Kumar Parida should appear in the Court on each date to which the case was posted. Eventually, the learned Sessions Judge passed the following order: ...The ball bonds furnished by the sureties are forfeited. Start a misc. case. Dwan up fine cheques. In accordance with this order, warrants were issued for payment of fines against the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 and consequently the Appellant has approached this Court in appeal. 3. Law is well settled that before a surety becomes liable to pay the amount of the bond forfeited it is necessary to give notice to show cause why the amount should not be realised and if he fails to show sufficient cause, only then can the Court proceed to recover the amount. When no opportunity has been given and notice to show cause has not been issued to a surety as to why he should not pay the amount, the proceedings cannot be said to be in accordance with law See Ghulam Mehdi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ILR 1978 (2) Cut 40, Rasananda Choudhury and Anr. v. State of Orissa. The usual procedure, therefore, is if without showing sufficient cause, an accused remains absent in the Court and the Court considers it appropriate to forfeit the bail bond, such an order should be passed and notice is to be issued to the surety to show cause. v. State of Orissa. The usual procedure, therefore, is if without showing sufficient cause, an accused remains absent in the Court and the Court considers it appropriate to forfeit the bail bond, such an order should be passed and notice is to be issued to the surety to show cause. Why the bail amount shall not be recovered from him. If the cause shown is found to be sufficient, then the surety is to be exempted from payment of the bail amount. If, on the other hand, the cause shown by him is not sufficient, then only he is to be called upon to pay the bail amount or any part of it. 4. In the present case the learned Sessions Judge signally failed to notice the settled principle of law referred to above. While forfeiting the bail bonds, he immediately called upon the sureties to pay the bail amounts by issuing fine cheques instead of asking them to show cause why the bail amount should not be recovered from them. The order which was not in accordance with law cannot, therefore, be supported and must be quashed. 5. Before I close, I would like to point out that accused Bijoy Kumar Parida was ultimately acquitted in the sessions trial by order dated 19.5.1986. His non-appearance in the Court on 30.1.1986 did not seem to be intentional because, his counsel was present in Court and in fact, had filed a petition u/s 317, Code of Criminal Procedure for representations. In the aforesaid view of the matter. I do not consider that the proceeding for recovery of the bail amount should continue any further. It is not also expedient in the interest of justice that two innocent persons should be made to pay heavily for no fault of theirs. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in my considered Opinion the proceeding for recovery of the bail amounts against the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed The appeal is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed