Order. These are two connected revision petitions arising from the order of the District Magistrate of Kottayam in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1959. The appellant therein has filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 228 of 1959 and the respondent has filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 176 of 1959. This case had a long and chequered career. The facts leading up to this petition may shortly be stated as follows: The revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 228 of 1959 was the accused in a criminal complaint on the file of the Pathanamthitta Stationary First Class Magistrate. He was the owner of a motor car T.R.V. 6225 which he had sold to the complainant in that case under a hire purchase agreement. As default was committed in the payment of the instalments, the petitioner seized the car under the terms of the agreement. On the seizure of the car a criminal complaint was launched against the petitioner for the offence of cheating. Under the orders of the Court, the car was taken into custody from the petitioner and eventually entrusted to the respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No. 228 of 1959 under a security bond Exhibit A, dated 30th January, 1950. No case was made out against the petitioner and so he was discharged on 25th January, 1951 and it was ordered that the car be returned to the petitioner. On the same date the petitioner presented a petition Exhibit C for directing the restoration of the car. The summons was duly served on the respondent, but he did not produce the car till 13th October, 1951. When it was produced the petitioner filed objections stating that the car was not in proper condition, that several parts were missing and that under the terms of Exhibit A, the respondent is bound to make good the value of the car and that he is also liable for penalty for breach of the terms of the security bond Exhibit A. Upon enquiry the Court found that the car that was produced was not in the condition in which it was entrusted to the respondent and that certain parts of the car were missing. By its order, dated 17th November, 1951, the Court directed the petitioner to take possession of the car and also called upon the respondent to execute a fresh bond for Rs. By its order, dated 17th November, 1951, the Court directed the petitioner to take possession of the car and also called upon the respondent to execute a fresh bond for Rs. 1,500 to indemnify the loss caused, pending assessment of what the actual loss would be. Subject to the new bond the original bond Exhibit A was cancelled. The matter was taken up in appeal before the District Magistrate, Quilon. The order of the lower Court directing the petitioner to take possession of the car was set aside and the case was sent back to the Magistrate for a de novo enquiry regarding the liability of the respondent. Accordingly fresh enquiry was held and by its order, dated 3rd January, 1957 the Court found that the respondent had violated the provisions of Exhibit A bond and so he was directed to pay into the Court a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the value of the car M.O. 1 and Rs. 100 by way of penalty for breach of the terms of the bond. It was ordered that the car be returned to the respondent. Aggrieved with the order both the parties filed appeals. Under orders of the High Court the appeals were transferred to the District Magistrate, Trivandrum. The learned District Magistrate dismissed both the appeals observing that Exhibit A bond stood cancelled, that the bond does not stipulate any amount, that the criminal Court was not competent to ascertain the value of the car which ought to have been stated in the bond itself and that the parties should work out their remedies in a civil Court. When the matter again came up before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate passed orders imposing a penalty of Rs. 100 on the respondent, but he was exonerated from the payment of Rs. 3,000 which was fixed as the value of the car. The petitioner again took the matter in appeal before the District Magistrate, Quilon. The learned District Magistrate summarily dismissed the appeal, whereupon Criminal Revision Petition No. 73 of 1958 was filed before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order and transferred the case for disposal to the District Magistrate Kottayam, observing that the alleged cancellation of the surety bond stood revised by the order of the District Magistrate dated 29th June, 1953. The High Court set aside the order and transferred the case for disposal to the District Magistrate Kottayam, observing that the alleged cancellation of the surety bond stood revised by the order of the District Magistrate dated 29th June, 1953. The District Magistrate, Kottayam, again heard the parties and passed the order which is now the subject matter of the two revision petitions. He ordered that the respondent should produce the car in Court and if default was committed the petitioner could work out his remedies under the security bond Exhibit A and realise Rs. 2,500 which was fixed as the price of the car. Both the parties have challenged the correctness and validity of the order. According to the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 228 of 1959 there was no need for any further enquiry and when default has been committed the respondent, ought to have been ordered to deposit the value of the car in Court. He also contends that the amount of Rs. 2,500 fixed as the value for the car is too low and the Court ought to have fixed Rs. 7,000 as the price in view of the admission made by the respondent. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 176 of 1959 on the other hand contends that the bond Exhibit A was not taken under any of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and is not enforcible under section 514, that Exhibit A bond is not alive and enforcible, that the price of the car not having been fixed in the security bond Exhibit A the Criminal Court is powerless in fixing the value of the car and ought to have referred the parties to the civil Court and finally that the value fixed in any view is arbitrary and excessive. Section 516-A says that when any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed is produced before any criminal Court during inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trial of the case. In this case the car was taken into custody and entrusted to the respondent on a surety bond under this section. In this case the car was taken into custody and entrusted to the respondent on a surety bond under this section. The bond therefore is one taken under the Code and on proof of facts constituting a breach of the conditions of the bond, under section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, it may be forfeited and the Magistrate is empowered to impose penalty and order that the value of the property which the person failed to produce be deposited in Court. It cannot be contended that when a bond is entered into, the Court has only the power to enforce the penalty against the party bound by the bond and that the Court cannot call upon the party to produce the goods or their value in Court. A similar question arose in Ram Prasad Agarwalla v. The State1, where it was held that: “Where under a bond a person engages to produce the goods in Court whenever called upon to do so and on his failure to do so, the bond is forfeited and penalty is levied, the bond or its breach cannot in any sense be so read as to extinguish the custody of the Court. The custody of the Court continues despite the bond and the Court has the necessary power to call upon the person to produce the goods either in the original or in converted form, in spite of forfeiture of bond and penalty therefor The forfeiture cannot be pleaded in extinguishment of the Court’s power to deal further with property or its sale proceeds.” So if the position is that the custody of the Court continues despite the bond, the Court must be held to have the necessary power to call upon the person to produce the goods in Court in the same condition in which it was entrusted to him or in default its value. Here under the bond Exhibit A the respondent was bound to produce the car in as good a condition as he took it from Court for safe custody. The finding of the Court which cannot be challenged now is that the car was not in its original condition when it was produced. The Court was therefore not bound to accept it. The finding of the Court which cannot be challenged now is that the car was not in its original condition when it was produced. The Court was therefore not bound to accept it. It is as good as not producing the car entrusted to him and so the bond could be forfeited and under the terms of the bond the respondent is bound to make good the value of the car. The argument that no value has been fixed in the security bond and the Court is powerless to fix the value and that the petitioner has to seek his remedy in a civil Court cannot be countenanced. The jurisdiction in regard to forfeiture of bonds vests exclusively in the criminal Court, for section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, provides that whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court, by which a bond under the said Code had been taken that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. The language of the section makes it quite clear that the power todetermine whether a bond should or should not be forfeited vests only in the criminal Court. A civil Court|has no power to intrude on the functions specifically entrusted to another Court. The respondent has under the terms of the bond undertaken to produce the car and the entire things contained therein as mentioned in the mahazar Exhibit-V dated 25th January, 1950, at the time and place required by the Court without causing any alteration or damage whatsoever. He has also bound himself to pay to the Government the value of the car and in addition any penalty that may be imposed on him by the Court, in the event of his conducting himself in any way different from the aforesaid undertaking. The respondent has failed without any valid reason to produce the car at the time and place required by the Court and even when it was produced after a lapse of about 8 months it was not in the same condition as it was entrusted to him. Several parts were missing and damage had been caused to the car while it was in the possession of the respondent. Several parts were missing and damage had been caused to the car while it was in the possession of the respondent. It is true the bond did not fix the value of the car, but the Court can ascertain and fix what the price of the car would be at the time it was entrusted to the respondent. It is seen from the hire purchase agreement Exhibit B that the petitioner had sold the car to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 7,000. But as stated by the learned First Class Magistrate of Pathanamthitta in his order dated 3rd January, 1957, there was evidence that the car collided with a lorry while it was in the possession of the petitioner’s father who was the original kachitdar. The petitioner himself in para. 8 of his petition dated 17th February, 1950, had stated that at the time of the preparation of the mahazar by the police the car would be worth Rs. 4,000. The date of the mahazar by the police is 7th February, 1124. The value of the car should therefore have been considerably less than that amount, on 31st January, 1950, when the car was entrusted to the respondent. The petitioner relies on some stray admission of the respondent in cross-examination when he was examined as D.W. 2 in O.S. No. 96 of 1951. That was a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent and others for the price of the car. There the respondent seems to have stated that he had taken the ear under the bond for Rs. 7,000. That it is obviously a mistake is clear, because the bond does not say so. The petitioner, therefore, cannot place any reliance on such a statement. Court witness No. 2 who was deputed to examine the car has filed his report Exhibit-E, wherein he has estimated the value of the car at Rs. 3,000. No data has been produced by either party to show that the valuation fixed is incorrect. The Court on a consideration of all the circumstances has fixed the value of the car at Rs. 3,000 on the date when it was entrusted to the respondent. Sitting in revision I do not find any reason to hold that the valuation made by the Court is wrong. The Court on a consideration of all the circumstances has fixed the value of the car at Rs. 3,000 on the date when it was entrusted to the respondent. Sitting in revision I do not find any reason to hold that the valuation made by the Court is wrong. The learned District Magistrate in his order dated 11th May, 1959, has however allowed one-sixth for depreciation and fixed the value of Rs. 2,500. I am not able to follow why depreciation should be allowed and why the present value should be fixed for payment. He was bound to produce the car in 1951 when he received notice from the Court. He has defaulted in doing so and in consequence he is bound to produce in Court the price of the car estimated in 1951. I, therefore, hold that the respondent is bound to produce in Court Rs. 3,000 as the value of the car. There is no further need to direct the car to be produced in Court as it had already been produced in Court and it was found that it was not in its original condition and it was not accepted. The Court can take further action as contemplated under section 514, Criminal Procedure Code. The car M.O. 1 which is stated to be even now in Court may be handed over to the respondent. The order of the learned District Magistrate is modified to the extent indicated above. Both the Revision Petitions are dismissed. M.C.M. ----- Petitions dismissed.