JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner-surety has filed this application under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 9.7.1985 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-surety and confirmed the order dated 5.12.1983 by which forfeiture and the recovery of the amount of surety bond of Rs. 5,000/- was ordered to be recovered as per the Provisions of Section 446. Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The petitioner was a surety for the accused in a criminal case in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Suratgarh. The accused absented himself on 13.7.1988. The learned Magistrate, therefore, forfeited the personal and surety bond. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner-surety to show- cause as to why the amount of the surety bond be not recovered from him. It appears that the notice was served on the petitioner for 18.7.1979 but the Court adjourned the case and ordered for the issue of another show-cause to the petitioner. Eventually, by his order dated 21.11.1979 the learned Magistrate ordered for the recovery of the full amount of the surety bond amounting to Rs. 5,000/- from the petitioner. He filed an appeal but without any success. 3. It may be stated during the course of recovery and before the realisation of the above amount, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate purporting to be under sub-section (3) of Section 446 praying for remission of the above amount. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 5.12.83 dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh who dismissed the same by his order dated 9.7.85. The petitioner has filed this revision. 4. I have heard both the parties. It may be stated that this revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate under sub-section (3) of Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate passed an erroneous order under sub-section (2) of Section 446 on 21.11.1979. Unfortunately the petitioner could not challenge the above order before this Court. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that looking to the above ground some substantial remission be allowed to the petitioner. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate passed an erroneous order under sub-section (2) of Section 446 on 21.11.1979. Unfortunately the petitioner could not challenge the above order before this Court. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that looking to the above ground some substantial remission be allowed to the petitioner. It was also pointed out by him that the case relates to the year 1978. Taking the above facts in consideration I am inclined that some remission ought to have been granted to the petitioner- surety.The revision petition is partly allowed to the extant that out of above surety bond only a sum of Rs. 1500/- be recovered from the petitioner-surety.Revision partly allowed. *******