JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.— Common questions of law and fact have arisen in the two Criminal Appeals No. 123 of 1991 and 124 of 1991 out of a common order dated 12-7-1991 passed in proceedings under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, as such both these criminal appeals can be conveniently disposed of together. 2. Rajinder Chauhan, the appellant, in the latter appeal was prosecuted for the commission of the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under section 420/114 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. Shimla, wherein he was released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000. The other appellant, Sh. Surinder Chauhan, in the formers main case, had furnished surety bond in the like amount. The bonds were furnished in respect of the appearance of the accused on all dates fixed by the Court below. 3. On 10-4-1991 accused Rajinder Chauhan absented, therefore, bail bonds furnished by him as also by his surety were ordered to be forefeited in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh Notices under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were ordered to be issued to both, to show-cause as to why the amount of the bonds be not recovered from them as penalty. Respondent filed their replies to the show-cause notice issued to each one of them. The common ground of defence taken by them is that accused Rajinder Chauhan mis-took the date of hearing in the main criminal case against him for 10th May, 1991 instead of 10th April, 1991 and the absence was that of bonafide mistake and was not wilful or intentional. 4. Both the accused appeared as their own witness in support of their own version The learned trial Court was not satisfied regarding the cause of non-appearance of the main accused Rajinder Chauhan on 10-4-1991. He, however, taking other mitigating circumstances into consideration, remitted an amount of Rs. 2,000 as penalty in each case and directed each one of the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs 3,000 each as penalty within 15 days from the date of the order. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order both the appellants have assailed the impugned order through the Instant appeals, 6. 2,000 as penalty in each case and directed each one of the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs 3,000 each as penalty within 15 days from the date of the order. 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order both the appellants have assailed the impugned order through the Instant appeals, 6. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has not been able to assist this Court on account of his not having put in appearance today. As such this Court has gone through the entire record itself. At the very out-set it may be stated that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge is neither wooden nor arbitrary or imaginary in having taken the view in imposing the penalty as detailed in the impugned order. His findings are based on sound reasonings and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. In that view of the matter the appeals being merit-less, are liable to be dismissed. 7. The object of section 446. Cr. P. C. is to give a chance to the accused/respondent to give an explanation and satisfy the Court that there were good reasons for his absence, that the absence was due to reasons beyond his control, and therefore, the penalty is not liable to be imposed upon him. It would be pertinent to detail at this stage that the surety bonds in Criminal Cases are designed to serve a public purpose and, therefore, responsibility of the surety arises from the execution of the surety bond by him independently to that of the personal bond executed by the accused. Thus the liability to the forfeiture to the personal bond of the accused cannot be said to be condition precedent to the forfeiture to the bond executed by the surety, The ultimate order passed by the Court depends upon its satisfaction on the facts and circumstances brought out in evidence Thus the sole question in the instant appeals is whether the impugned order have been passed by the Court below on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties ? 8. Both the appellants, i. e, the accused and surety were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence. Excepting both of them, none has appeared as a witness. It Is to be noted that apart from them one Krishan Dass was also a co-accused of Rajinder Chauhan appellant in the main case. He had appeared on 10-4-1991. 8. Both the appellants, i. e, the accused and surety were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence. Excepting both of them, none has appeared as a witness. It Is to be noted that apart from them one Krishan Dass was also a co-accused of Rajinder Chauhan appellant in the main case. He had appeared on 10-4-1991. According to accused Rajinder Chauhan, the appellant before this Court, his co-accused apprised him of the passing of the non-bailable warrants against him. The passing of the zimni order dated 23-2-1991 in the main case titled as State of H. P. v. Krishan Dass etc , case No. 7-S/2 of 1990 coupled with the presence of co-accused of Rajinder Chauhan, now appellant corroborates the fact that there was no confusion in the adjourned date announced by the Court below as 10-4-1991. Even in para-1 of the reply to the show-cause notice both the appellants have categorically stated that the next date was fixed by the Court below as 10-4-1991. Thus how and under what circumstances appellant Rajinder Chauhan mis-took the adjourned date to be 10-5-1991 remains unexplained, The learned Court below was absolutely right in arriving at this conclusion and thus directing the passing of the impugned order against Rajinder Chauhan. So far as surety is concerned, he under the terms of the bonds had undertaken that the accused would be appearing on ail dates before any Court in the main criminal case Thus the surety band being a contract, he is also liable for the lapse of the main accused. 9. As regards, the mitigating circumstance that main accused Rajinder Chauhan had not committed any such fault in hot appearing before the trial Court, has been taken note of by the learned trial Court while reducing the sum of the bond money at the time of the forfeiture thereof through the impugned order. 10. In view of the entire facts and circumstances, there appears to be no substance in the instant appeals. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected file. Appeals dismissed.