Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision filed by the petitioner I surety is directed against the order dated 29-6-1990, in C. A. No. 76 of 1990, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, confirming the order passed by the XVIII Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, in Crl. M. P. No. 767 of 1990, in S. C. No. 41 of 1986, on 5-3-1990. ( 2 ) THE car involved in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1986, on the file of XVIII Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, was directed to be returned to one Subiah, the owner of the car. The petitioner stood as a surety and executed a bond in favour of the car owner. Since the said car was not produced by the car owner, on the direction of the Court, both the car owner and the surety were summoned to appear before the court on 531990. The car owner filed a petition in Cr1. M. P. No. 767 of 1990 in S. C. No. 41 of 1986, stating that the car which was originally return to him seven years back by the orders of the court was dismantled, since he was under the impression, that the case was closed already and requesting to condone the non-production of the car and admonish the car owner. The petitioner / surety also filed a statement before the Court on 5-3-1990, expressing the inability to produce the car, in view of the statement made by the said car owner in his petition in Crl. M. P. No. 767 of 1990. ( 3 ) THE XVIII Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 13,000/ -as penalty towards the bond executed by him. The order dated 5-3-1990 reads thus: Surety Chandra Mouleeswaran present furnished a reply. He is ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 13,000/-towards the bond executed by him. Rs. 500/ -paid, For paying the Balance of Rs. 12,500/- by 19-3-1990. ( 4 ) CHALLENGING this order, the petitioner filed an appeal in C. A. No. 76 of 1990, before the VI Additional Sessions Court, Madras. However, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the same, confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been resorted to by the petitioner before this Court. ( 5 ) MR. However, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the same, confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision has been resorted to by the petitioner before this Court. ( 5 ) MR. C. Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order is vitiated by the illegality committed by the trial Court, as it has been passed without following the mandatory procedures contemplated under section 446 Cr. P. C. I have heard learned counsel Mr. N. R. Elango, appearing for the Public Prosecutor. ( 6 ) IT is relevant to note that the Sessions Court in its order, while referring about section 446, Cr. P. C. , observed that in the event of non-production of the car by the surety, the bond must be forfeited, and then, the lower Court should issue show cause notice to the surety as to why the penalty should not be imposed, after recording the grounds of proof of the forfeiture of the bond. Admittedly, the Assistant Sessions Court on the date of the order i. e. , on 5-3-1990, heard the explanation from the surety as if show cause notice was served on him and passed the final order. The fact remains, there was no show cause notice issued to the petitioner/surety after forfeiture of the bond. The records reveal that the surety was summoned on 5-3-1990 to produce the car and that the petitioner filed a reply, expressing his inability to produce the car, and on the same day, the impugned order was passed. As such, there was no show cause notice and there was no opportunity to furnish any reply to such notice. ( 7 ) WHILE dealing with the above said provisions, the Apex Court in Ghulam Mehdi v. State of Rajasthan, has observed as follows: This prevision 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. 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 penalised forms of law have to be observed and an 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. ( 8 ) IN Sadananda v. State of Karnataka, the High Court of Karnataka, has held as follows: However, it is clear from the last portion of sub-section (1) of section 446, that once the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall call upon the surety, bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid and at that stage that Court shall record the grounds of the proof of the forfeiture of the bond. In other words, at the stage of issuing the notice to the surety after forfeiting his bond, the court shall record the grounds of the proof of the forfeiture of the bond and call upon the surety to pay the penalty or to show cause why it should not be paid. Obviously law enjoins upon the court to record the grounds of forfeiture of the bond at the time of issuing the notice to the surety calling upon him to show cause why it should not be paid so as to enable the surety to show cause, if any against payment of the bond amount by way of ( 9 ) IN Ramasamy and others v. State rep. through the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodaikana this Court has held as under: It is only after issue of such notice and after hearing them, the Court can pass an order directing the persons bound by the bond to pay the penalty. In the absence of any such notice and in the absence of any opportunity to them to represent, the order directing issue of distraint warrant cannot stand and has to be set aside. ( 10 ) BEARING these principles of law in mind. I am of the view, that the order passed by the trial Court, which has been confirmed by the first appellate Court, cannot be sustained in law. ( 10 ) BEARING these principles of law in mind. I am of the view, that the order passed by the trial Court, which has been confirmed by the first appellate Court, cannot be sustained in law. Further more, the order dated 5-3-1990, directing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 13,000/- does not contain the reasons and there are no grounds of proof for the forfeiture of bond and it does not also contain the grounds on which the penalty has been levied. As admitted by the Government Advocate there was no notice issued to the petitioner / surety to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed, after recording the grounds of proof about the forfeiture of the bond. ( 11 ) IN the light of the above facts. I am of the view that this order dated 5-3-1990, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the revision is allowed, setting aside the orders of the courts below and he matter is remitted back to the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to give notice to the petitioner/surety and proceed the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of section 446 Cr. P. C. Revision allowed.