GD. DUBEY,J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has arisen from an order dated 28-10. 1991 of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad forfeiting the personal bond executed by the applicant and issuing him a show cause notice as to why he should not be made liable to pay the amount of bond as penalty. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant was asked to show as to how this appeal is maintainable. In reply to this query of the Court the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to Sections 446 and 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has been urged that u/s. 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure every order is appealable and therefore, impugned order is also appealable. Learned counsel has cited some case laws in support of his contention. ( 3 ) THE facts from which this appeal arises are very brief. Appellant has been named as an acc used in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149,307 and 336 of the I. P. C. He had moved a writ petition before this court challenging the First Information Report. However, this court rejected the writ petition but passed an order enabling the appellant to surrender and move an application for bail before the Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate was directed to decide the bail application on the same day. In case this bail application was rejected by the Magistrate, the applicant was permitted to move another bail application before the Sessions Judge concerned who was also directed to dispose of the same as early as possible and preferably on the same day. In case the application was not disposed of the court has directed that the appellant may be released on personal bond for the intervening period. ( 4 ) THE appellant had absented on 10-10-1991. Consequently the impugned order was passed. ( 5 ) IT has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is an accused person. He had moved an application for exemption of his appearance on the date of hearing of his bail application. He had, therefore, not absented himself. There was no justification for forfeiture of the bail bonds. It was also urged that the appellant is an accused. The personal bond furnished by him cannot be treated in the same manner as that of his surety. He had, therefore, not absented himself. There was no justification for forfeiture of the bail bonds. It was also urged that the appellant is an accused. The personal bond furnished by him cannot be treated in the same manner as that of his surety. ( 6 ) SECTION 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the procedure for forfeiture of bonds. The personal bond executed by an accused is also a bond within the meaning of section 446, Cr. P. C. Hence the provisions of section 446 of the Code will apply. ( 7 ) SECTION 446, Cr. P. C. provides that when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a bond has been forfeited, then show cause notice has to be issued to the person executing the bond as to why he be not asked to pay the penalty thereof for the amount which he had bound himself to pay when called upon to do so for non-compliance of the terms of the bond. ( 8 ) SECTION 449 of the Code, no doubt, says that all orders passed under Section 446, Cr. P. C. shall be appealable. The order asking the person executing the bond to show cause is only an intermediary order. Some final orders have to be passed after the person executing the bond shows the cause or if he fails to show cause the concerned court passes an appropriate order. Under section 449, Cr. P. C. only final orders passed by the court after forfeiture of the bonds and since of the show cause notice in the person executing bond are appealable. ( 9 ) IN Dhanvir and others v. State and another, notice was issued to the surety to show cause why the bonds be not forfeited. It was a cause arising under Section 514 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898. It was held in this cause that notice to show cause as to why bonds be not forfeited is not contemplated in this section 514. On the facts it was found by Himachal Pradesh High Court that the accused had not absconded and was available before the court. Hence it was a cause in which bond should not have forfeited. It was held in this cause that notice to show cause as to why bonds be not forfeited is not contemplated in this section 514. On the facts it was found by Himachal Pradesh High Court that the accused had not absconded and was available before the court. Hence it was a cause in which bond should not have forfeited. In this cause, the High Court did not embark upon the question whether any appeal is maintainable when the court below has asked the appellant to show cause why the amount mentioned in the bond be not realized as penalty. ( 10 ) UDAI Raj v. The State, does not lay down the law that where notice to show cause was only issued, then such an order is appealable. In this case a single order forfeiting the surety bonds and directing the realization of amount of bonds was passed. This case is not applicable to the present matter. ( 11 ) GHULAM Mehdi v. State of Rajasthan, also arises in a case governed by section 514 of the old Code. In this case the bonds were forfeited and the executor of the bond was allowed to pay the penalty without a show cause notice being issued to him as to why he should not pay the penalty. The Hontble Supreme Court observed: This provision shows that before a surety becomes liable to pay the amount of the bond forfeited, it is necessary to give notice why the amount should not be paid and if he fails to show sufficient cause only then can the Court proceed to recover the money. In the present case the appellant was not called upon to show cause why the penalty should not be paid. Before a man can be penalized, forms of law have to be observed and opportunity has to be given to a surety to show cause why he should not be made to pay and as in this case that was not done, proceedings cannot be said to be in accordance with law and should therefore be quashed. T ( 12 ) IN the above case the appeal had been preferred after the order of the Court directing the surety to pay the penalty had been passed. ( 13 ) THE next case Trilok Chand v. Ram Gopal is based on different facts. T ( 12 ) IN the above case the appeal had been preferred after the order of the Court directing the surety to pay the penalty had been passed. ( 13 ) THE next case Trilok Chand v. Ram Gopal is based on different facts. The sureties on receipt of the show cause notice did not appear before the court. The court directed the sureties to pay the penalty. It was held by this Court that such an order was appeal able. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 14 ) VITTHAL Das Moolji v. Emperor is also based on different facts. Hence too the Magistrate had enforced the bonds. Hence appeal against it was entertained. In the case in hand occasion for enforcement of bond has not arisen. The appellant has still an opportunity to show cause why the bond be not enforced against him and he be forced to pay the penalty. ( 15 ) THE next case Sarju v. Raj Kumar is also based on different facts. In this case bonds had been forfeited on the application of the complainant. It was held that such a person had no locus standi to file an appeal against an order when the Magistrate had refused to forfeit the bonds on such an application. ( 16 ) THE impugned order has three limbs. Firstly the reason was recorded for forfeiture of the bonds, secondly a show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why he should not pay the penalty and thirdly non-bail able warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the appellant. No appeal lies against this last part of the order under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As observed earlier, the first two parts of the impugned order are also not appeal able under section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is still an opportunity to the appellant to show cause notice to the lower court is as to why he should not pay the penalty. The case laws cited by learned counsel for the appellant do not help him. In the result, the appeal fails-and is rejected summarily.-Appeal dismissed .