JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - This criminal revision arises out of the order dated 29-8-1988 passed by Sri B.N. Patnaik, Sessions Judge, Balasore, 10 Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1986 against the order dated 21-7-1986 passed by Sri S.K. Misra. Assistant Sessions Judge. Balasore, in Misc. Case No. 148 of 1986 imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- against the Petitioner, who was the bailor for one Lawer Parida in Sessions Trial No. 17/123 of 1985. 2. Iswar Parida was the accused in S.T. No. 17/123 of 1985 and he was convicted in the case on 5-4-1986 u/s 497, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. The said Iswar Parida was, however released on bail by executing the bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety. The convict Iswar Parida gave an' undertaking in the bail bond to obtain bail order from the appellate court by 21-4-1986. The Petitioner Gananath Panda was the bailor. The bail order could not be obtained by 21- 4-1986, as stipulated in the bail bond Hence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge forfeited the bail bond on 22-4-1986 A Misc. Case u/s 446, Code of Criminal Procedure being Misc. Case No. 148 of 1986 was instituted and the bailor (Petitioner) was asked to show cause as to why the bail amount of Rs. 10,000/- should not be realised from him it appears that the bailor did not file show cause in spite of receiving the notice and hence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,1000/. It appears that the notice to show cause was served upon the Petitioner on 8-7-1986 and by that time the order had already been passed in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1986 allowing the convict Iswar Parida to be released on bail of Rs. 5.000/- with one local surety and the said Iswar Parida had also been released on bail on furnishing the bail bond on 15-7-1986. After the penalty was, imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge the Petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore. The learned Sessions Judge, Balasore took a liberal view in the matter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-. Against this order, the revision petition has been filed. 3. After the penalty was, imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge the Petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore. The learned Sessions Judge, Balasore took a liberal view in the matter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-. Against this order, the revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner Gananath Panda did not lack bona fides, as the convict Iswar Parida had obtained bail order in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1986 by the time of service of notice to show cause on him (Petitioner) on 8.7-1986. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner also argued that the principles of natural justice has forfeited without been violated and the bail bond has been giving any notice to the Petitioner. 4. It may be mentioned that in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1986, the convict Iswar Parida has already been acquitted. It also appears that although the convict Iswar Parida undertook to obtain the bail order from the appellate court on 21-4-1986, the same could not be possible probably due to the legal formalities and the bail order was passed on 7-5-1986. Soon after the bail order was passed, the same was despatched to the trial court and the said order was received by the trial court on 8-5-1986. Hence, in spite of the slight delay, it is found that neither the bailor nor the convict had been negligent in filing the bail petition or in pursuing the bail matter. The notice to show cause after forfeiture of the bail bond was served on 8-7-1986 and at that time the bail order from the appellate court had already been received in the trial court. In such circumstances, if the surety feels that probably he has nothing further to do as the bail order had already been received in the trial court since long, it cannot be said to be a very serious mistake specially when the surety (Petitioner) appears to be a rustic and unacquainted with the technicalities of law. 5. In the misc. case, order was passed on 21-7-1986 directing the Petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 10.000/- as penalty and by that time the convict had already been released on bail by the trial court. 5. In the misc. case, order was passed on 21-7-1986 directing the Petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 10.000/- as penalty and by that time the convict had already been released on bail by the trial court. If the bailor did not take the matter seriously as the convict was released by the trial court on bail, then it cannot be said that the bailor lacks bona fides. In these circumstances, the imposition of penalty on the bailor does not appear to be proper. 6. In a decision reported in Suryanarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 1989 C.L.R. 75 it has been held by this Court that before a decision is taken to forfeit the Bond, a hearing to the affected party becomes the demand of natural justice and it has also been held that unless an opportunity of hearing is given to the affected party and as a result of which the principle of natural justice has been violated, the order of forfeiture is liable to be quashed. This view has been taken by this Court after discussing various other decisions of the Supreme Court as wen as the High Courts including the earlier decision of this Court and hence the view taken by this Court, stated above appears to be established principle of law. In this case, the bail bond was forfeited without giving any opportunity of hearing to the bailor i.e. Petitioner and hence, the order of forfeiture of bail- bond is vitiated and it must be quashed and as a logical corollary the subsequent order passed by the trial court imposing penalty and also the appellate court must be held to have been vitiated and those orders are bound to be quashed. 7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order imposing the penalty on the Petitioner is quashed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed