JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 3-8-94, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.1. Cases, Jodhpur, by which the learned Special Judge ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 1250/- each from the personal bonds of the accused-appellants. 2. The appellants are facing trial in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C.B.1. Cases, Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, 1.P.C. and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1985. They were released on bail. On 22-7-94, the accused-appellants did not appear before the trial Court and, therefore, the learned Special Judge ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of the personal bonds furnished by the appellants and fixed the case for framing the charges on 11-8-94. The appellants thereafter appeared before the trial Court and moved an application under Section 446(3) G.P.C. for remitting the amount on the ground that they had gone to Assam to attend the post-death rites of their grand-mother, who died in Assam and they had already moved an application for grant of exemption on that count. The exemption from attendance of co-accused Yashpal Bhatiya was sought on the ground of paralytic attack to him. The learned Special Judge considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and remitted the major part of the penalty and ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 1250/- each from the personal bonds. He, also, remitted the amount of penalties so far as the sureties are concerned. 3. Accused-appellants Surendra Kumar Kothari, Rajendra Kumar Kothari and Laxmipat Kothari had gone to Assam to attend the post-death rites of their grand-mother who died in Assam. Accused Yashpal Bhatiya had an attack of paralysis on his lower limbs and was unable to move. Application for grant of exemption was moved by the accused before the learned Special Judge on that day. It was not a case of wilful absence from the Court and their absence was on justified reasons. The circumstances disclosed in the application clearly make-out a-case for their personal exemption on that day. The matter is pending in the trial Court since 1985 and no progress has taken in the case for the last so many years. The learned Judge of the C.B.I. Court was, therefore, not justified in ordering for the forfeiture of the amount from the personal bonds. The matter is pending in the trial Court since 1985 and no progress has taken in the case for the last so many years. The learned Judge of the C.B.I. Court was, therefore, not justified in ordering for the forfeiture of the amount from the personal bonds. The order, passed by the learned Special Judge, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 4. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellants, is allowed. The order dated 22-7-94, ordering for the forfeiture of the amount from the personal bonds and the order dated 3-8-84, imposing the penalty of Rs. 1250/- each on the accused-appellants are, therefore, set-aside and the whole amount of the personal bonds, ordered to be forfeited, is remitted.Appeal allowed. *******