JUDGMENT S.S. Dani, J. - These two petitioners challenge the order dated 28th August, 1991 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 162 of 1988 inflicting the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- each and directing the action for recovery of penalty under section 446 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. One Narayan Sambhaji Boinwad was charged and tried for an offence of murder punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 162 of 1988 and was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge at Nanded. These two petitioners are the sureties and have executed the surety bond of Rs. 2,500/- each as per the order of the Sessions Court when accused Narayan came to be released on bail in the said case. The accused Narayan Sambhaji was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the said case. But, Thereafter, he absconded and is not traced out till today. The judgment of conviction and sentence came to be pronounced in the absence of the accused and, inasmuch as the accused was not present to receive the sentence, the Sessions 'Court issued warrant against the concerned accused and notices to both these petitioners. The present petitioner No 1 Bapurao then made an application Ext. 51 on 3.10.1989 before the Sessions Judge for time to produce the accused and to pay the amount. It came to be rejected by an order dated 15.12.1989 and the surety bond was forfeited and penalty of Rs. 2,500/- was imposed. Petitioner No. 1 Bapurao was directed by the said order to pay the amount of penalty on or before 30.12.1989. Petitioner No. 2 Gajanna Rajanna also applied to the same Court by an application Ext. 61 for the same relief and his surety bond also come to be forfeited and penalty of the same amount of Rs. 2,500/- was also imposed. Both the sureties, Thereafter, filed an application to the Court below for remitting the penalty and for their discharge. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, rejected the requests of both the sureties by an order dated 28th August, 1991 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,500/- each and directed the steps to be taken for the recovery of the amount as arrears of fine under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, rejected the requests of both the sureties by an order dated 28th August, 1991 and imposed penalty of Rs. 2,500/- each and directed the steps to be taken for the recovery of the amount as arrears of fine under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this order that is being challenged in the present writ petition by the two sureties. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, the prosecuting machinery has not taken any steps to trace out the accused and no proceeding under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been initiated. It is, therefore, submitted toat, unless action of proclamation for the absconding accused is initiated and taken under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no action under section 446 of the said Code can be taken. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of imposing the penalty and directing it to be recovered as arrears of fine is unwarranted according to law. These submissions however, cannot be accepted. The actions of issuance of proclamation and attachment for the absconding accused under section 82 of the Code and that of forfeiture of the bond and initiating the recovery of it as arrears of fine under section 446 of the Code are two distinct and independent actions. The action of forfeiture of bond and levy of penalty and subsequent procedure for recovery of the amount of penalty under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not dependent on the action 10 be initiated under section 82 of the Code. The proclamation for absconding accused provided for by section 82 of the Code is not a condition precedent for initiating the procedure of recovery of amount of penalty under section 446 when the bond has been forfeited. The impugned order dated 28th August, 1991 directing the recovery .of amount of penalty as The arrears of fine cannot, therefore, be disturbed on this count. 4. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, the amounts of penalty of Rs. 2,500/- each are excessive and some portion of the penalty should be remitted and the Court below be directed to enforce the payment in part only. This submission also cannot be accepted. 4. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, the amounts of penalty of Rs. 2,500/- each are excessive and some portion of the penalty should be remitted and the Court below be directed to enforce the payment in part only. This submission also cannot be accepted. It is undisputed that the accused Narayan Sambhaji was ordered to be released on bail of PR of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 2,500/- each, and, accordingly, these two petitioners had stood as sureties and accused Narayan was enlarged on bail. Further, it may be noted that, on 15.12.1989 itself the surety bonds have been forfeited and the penalties have already been imposed. 5. Under section 446 or the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court can proceed to recover the amount of penalty as if such penalty were fine imposed by it under the Code. The request for remission of any portion of the penalty was already turned down while the surety bonds came to be forfeited and the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- each was imposed by an order dated 15.12.1989. The re-request of remitting of any portion of the penalty cannot, therefore, be accepted. 6. Coming to the merits of the case I find no substance in the present writ petition. It is not in dispute that these two petitioners stood as sureties and in pursuance of the bail order, they executed surety bond of Rs. 2,500/- each. It is further undisputed that the accused for whom these petitioners stood as sureties, is absconding since the pronouncement of the judgment of conviction and sentence and is not produced before the Court to receive the sentence. The surety bond of each of these petitioners has already been forfeited by an order dated 15.12.1989 and the request of remission of some portion of the penalty was already turned down. The impugned order dated 28th August, 1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, imposing the penalty of the equal amount of Rs. 2,500/- each by directing to recover it as arrears of fine is proper and does not suffer from any infirmity. Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the Court that if no sufficient cause is shown and the penalty is not paid it may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it. Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the Court that if no sufficient cause is shown and the penalty is not paid it may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it. No cause, less sufficient one, has been shown by any of these two petitioners for not paying the penalty. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court in the present writ petition. The petition, therefore, deserves rejection, It is lastly, however, submitted that these two petitioners be granted two months time to deposit the amount of penalty. The request on behalf of the petitioners is also acceptable to the State. It may also be noted that, while granting Rule on 13.12.1991, this Court had ordered interim stay to the impugned order on condition that, the petitioner deposit Rs. 1,000/- in Sessions Court within two weeks. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, an amount of Rs. 1,000/has accordingly been deposited in the Sessions Court. The total amount of penalty to be recovered from the both the petitioners comes to Rs. 5,000/- and out of which Rs. 1,000/- has already been deposited. It would, therefore, be proper to grant some time to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 2,000/- each. 7. In the result, Criminal Writ Petition No. 285 of 1991 stands rejected. However, it is directed that, both the petitioners are allowed to deposit Rs. 4,000/- within a period of two months from this date in the Sessions Court and it is only on the failure of the deposit of the said amount that the action in respect of recovery as arrears of fine be resorted to under section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With the above direction rule stands discharged. Petition dismissed.