Order.- This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Bidar under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent before this Court was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing cash security of Rs. 5,000 and his own personal bond for a like sum, by the learned First Class Magistrate, Humnabad. Aggrieved by the order demanding cash security of Rs. 5,000 from him, the respondent went up in revision to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bidar. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to demand cash security from the respondent and his order was illegal and hence, he has made this reference under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. Sri Rego, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Public Prosecutor, has supported the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge. Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, reads as follows: “Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the Police Officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such p;rson shallattend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend unit otherwise directed by the Police-Officer or Court, as the case may be.” It is clear from the words of the section that it contemplates taking of a personal bond from the accused person and a bond by one or more sureties. The section does not empower the Magistrate to demand cash security. Section 513, Criminal Procedure Code, states that when any person is required by any Court or officer to execute a bond, with or without sureties, such Court or officer may, except in the case of a bond for good behaviour, permit him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as the Court or officer may fix, in lieu of executing such bond. According to this section, if the accused wants to deposit any sum of money, it is open to the Court to accept the same. But the law does not empower the Court to insist on cash deposit to be made by the accused. According to this section, if the accused wants to deposit any sum of money, it is open to the Court to accept the same. But the law does not empower the Court to insist on cash deposit to be made by the accused. In R.R. Chari v. Emperor1, Wanchoo, J., (as he then was) held that section 499, Criminal Procedure Code, does not authorise the Magistrate to demand cash security from the accused. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, his Lordship has observed as follows: “The language of section 499, Criminal Procedure Code, makes it perfectly clear that what that section contemplates is the furnishing of a personal bond by the accused person and a bond by one or more sufficient sureties. The accused as well as the sureties have, therefore, to execute only bonds which are sufficient in the mind of the Magistrate for the amount which he might have fixed. This is also the view taken by the Patna High Court in Rajballam Singh v. Emperor2, and I respectfully agree with it. Section 513 provides for a concession to an accused person who is unable to produce sureties That section also makes it clear that the Magistrate is not bound to accept cash, but may permit an accused person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a personal bond and giving surety of some persons. That section, however, does not authorise a demand of cash by a Magistrate. Under these circumstances even though an offer may have been made in this case by the Counsel for the applicant, that offer was made after the Magistrate apparently had made up his mind to demand cash security. It will not be covered by the terms of section 513, Criminal Procedure Code, and the demand of cash security in this case was clearly illegal.” The Patna High Court in Rajballam Singh v. Emperor2, has held that the law does not contemplate or authorise the Magistrate to demand cash deposit as a condition to the release of an accused on bail. Similarly, the Nagpur High Court in Nimat Khan v.The Crown3, has held that section 499 only contemplates taking of a personal bond from the accused person and a bond by one or more sureties. The section does not empower a Magistrate to demand cash security. Similarly, the Nagpur High Court in Nimat Khan v.The Crown3, has held that section 499 only contemplates taking of a personal bond from the accused person and a bond by one or more sureties. The section does not empower a Magistrate to demand cash security. It is clear that the learned Magistrate could not insist on a cash security of Rs. 5,000 being furnished by the accused. The order of the learned Magistrate is, therefore, illegal. In the result, this reference made by the learned Sessions Judge is accepted and the order of the learned Magistrate directing the accused to furnish cash security of Rs. 5,000 is set aside. The learned Magistrate will demand proper security from the accused according to law. S.V.J. ----- Reference accepted; Order set aside.