JUDGMENT Surya Prasad, J. - This is an appeal against the order dated 27-2-1979 under Section 446, Cr. P.C. passed by the then learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Sri O. N. Asthana, in Cr. Misc. Case No. 24 of 1978 (State v. Kanhaiya Lal) directing the forfeiture of the bond amount. 2. A perusal of the record would show that the appellant stood on 3-1-1975 a surety for the accused Babu in Sessions Trial No. 240 B/75 State v. Babu under Section 399/402 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Kos, District Mathura for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. This Sessions Trial was connected with other Sessions Trial No. 240/75 (State v. Yad Ram and others under Sections 399/402. I.P.C. and Section 25, Arms Act. The accused Babu in the said Sessions Trial No. 240-B,75 committed default in presenting himself in the Court of the then Additional Sessions Judge, and, therefore, he passed the impugned order on 27-2-1989. The appellant felt aggrieved of the said order and therefore, preferred this appeal against the same. 3. A perusal of the record would show that the appellant moved an application on the same day i.e. 27-2-1979 for time to trace the accused Babu and to produce him in the Court. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the following order thereon : "Put up on the date fixed. The sureties have not disclosed any reason." 4. The above application does not appear to have been disposed of because no order of any sort appears to have been passed thereon. On the other hand the learned Additional Sessions Judge passel the impugned order forfeiting bonds of the sureties and issuing notices to the sureties for realisation of the amount of the bonds while however fixing 6-4 1979 as the date for the file being put up before him. The heaven would not have fallen if the learned Additional Sessions Judge and granted tote prayer for time till 6-4-1979 the further date fixed in the case so as to enable the appellant surety to trace and produce the accused in the Court. 5. Both the above mentioned Sessions trial No. 240/75 and 240-B/ 75 were decided on 27-10-1980 and 29-5-981 respectively and the accused were acquitted therein. 'Therefore, the impugned order became infructuous long back. 6. In view of the above observations this appeal has force and is accordingly allowed. 5. Both the above mentioned Sessions trial No. 240/75 and 240-B/ 75 were decided on 27-10-1980 and 29-5-981 respectively and the accused were acquitted therein. 'Therefore, the impugned order became infructuous long back. 6. In view of the above observations this appeal has force and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 17-2-1979 is set aside. The appellant's bond is cancelled and is discharged, if the bond has not already been cancelled. The bond amount if deposited will be refunded to the appellant.