T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners assail the docket order 21-9-2001 passed by the learned special Judge for Economic Offences, hyderabad, in CC No. 145 of 2001. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are A1 and A2 in CC No. 145 of 2001 filed under Section 24 (1) of the Companies Act by the second respondent herein. There are four more accused in the said case apart from these petitioners. Pursuant to the summonses issued to these petitioners, the second petitioner representing himself as well as the first petitioner-Company appeared before the Court on 19-9-2001. On his appearance, the Court ordered that he should be bound over for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum and directed fresh summonses to be issued to the other accused 3 to 6 in the case. In the meanwhile, it appears that an application was filed by the second petitioner seeking extension of time for furnishing surely. The Court below advanced the case suo moto and passed the impugned order dated 21-9-2001 which may be extracted hereunder thus:"the Court suo moto advanced this case to this day. The application for extention of time for furnishing surety cannot be considered as the accused 1 and 2 themselves offered to furnish the solvency today when appeared before this Court on 19-9-2001. Hence issue NBW to A2 and call on 11-10-2001. "obviously, the Court below refused to consider the request for extention of time and directed a warrant to be issued to the second petitioner (A2 ). The petitioners are now assailing the said, order, as aforesaid. ( 3 ) SRI A. Ramnarayana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the order directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum is unwarranted. ( 4 ) SECTION 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code for brevity) is germane in the context for consideration and may be excerpted hereunder thus:"power to take bon for appearance : when any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summon or warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties for his appearance in such Court, or any other Court to which the case may be transferred for trial. "this section is a general provision, which authorises a Magistrate to direct a person present in Court to execute a bond with or without sureties for his appearance. Direction to execute a bond for appearance is obviously meant to vouchsafe the appearance of that person in Court. In the event of any failure of that person to appear before the Court having been bound, under section 89 of the Code, the Court can issue a warrant directing that a person to be arrested and produced before it. Chapter VI of the Code deals with the process to compel appearance of the persons before the court. It is in four parts. Part-A deals with the summons, its form and contents, and mode of its service; Part-B deals with the warrant of arrest, its form the contents, and mode of its execution; Part-C deals with proclamation and attachment when to resorted; and Part-D deals with the other rules regarding process. Coming within the realm of Part-D of Chapter VI of the Code, section 87 reads that the Court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person in the first instance after recording its reasons therefor. Such power can be exercised only when the Court sees reason to believe that the person to be summoned before it has absconded or will not obey the summons. When a summons is issued in the first instance and the person against whom it is issued fails to appear before the Court, having been duly served with the summons, a warrant can be directed to be issued under this section. Section 88 of the Code comes into play when that person for whose appearance the Court is empowered to issue either summons or warrant is present before the Court. All these provisions are meant to compel the appearance of the persons before the Criminal Courts and to vouchsafe their presence before the Court for all the further dates. Under Section 90 of the Code, the provisions contained in chapter VJ relating to a summons or a warrant and their issuance, service and execution are made applicable to every summons and every warrant of arrest issued under the Code. The power conferred under Section 88 upon the Court to require a person to execute a bond with or without sureties is untrammelled and cannot be questioned. The power conferred under Section 88 upon the Court to require a person to execute a bond with or without sureties is untrammelled and cannot be questioned. What happens when the person refused to execute a bond pursuant to the direction of the Court requiring him to execute a bond is not germane for consideration in the context. That cannot also be a ground to question the power of the Court to require the person who appeared before it to execute a bond either with or without sureties. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners placing reliance upon the judgment of the apex Court in Natabar Parida v. State of orissa, AIR 1975 SC 1465 = 1975 Crl. LJ 1212, that the Magistrate has no inherent power to remand a person to custody in the absence of any provision specifically empowering him to do so, is of no significance in the context. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, at this juncture, contends that there has been a practice in the Special court for trying the economic offencess to insist the accused persons to deposit the amount convered by the bond instead of execution of the same. It appears that such a practice has been in vogue since a long time in that Court. If for any reason, the court directed the accused person to furnish a bond for Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties for a like sum each, it appears that as per the practice, in all a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs shall be deposited before the Court. Of course that amount would be invested in a fixed deposit or different fixed deposits and would be ordered to be returned the person at the culmination of the trial or otherwise ordered by the Court. It is common knowledge that the amount for which the bond shall be executed, shall be fixed by the Court by exercising its discretion depending upon the gravity of the offence and the other attendant circumstances. If for any reason, the Court fixes the bond amount at a higher rate, the party has to invariably deposit that amount. It may work out hardship atleast in certain cases though not in all. If for any reason, the Court fixes the bond amount at a higher rate, the party has to invariably deposit that amount. It may work out hardship atleast in certain cases though not in all. It may be that the person appeared before that Court being the accused alleged to be the economic offender might afford to deposit the amount or amounts but as the amount covered by the bond goes up having been fixed by the Court exercising its discretion it would certainly compel the person to deposit the amount notwithstanding the necessary resources he has at that stage. The hardship that would result to the persons who have been directed to deposit the amount is one aspect. Whether such a practice is authorised by law is another aspect. Except Section 445 of the Code, there is no provision in the Code which empowers the Court to direct a person to deposit the amount covered by the bond and the sureties also to do so. Section 445 may be extracted hereunder thus:"deposit instead of recognizance :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. " ( 6 ) A persual of the said provision shows that the person who has been directed to execute a bond with or without sureties may seek the permission of the Court to deposit the amount in lieu of executing such bond. This provision is meant to enable the persons, who have been directed to execute a bond with or without sureties for a sum fixed by the Court and who are not able to produce the sureties, to make a request to the Court to permit them to deposit the amount covered by the bond in lieu of executing the bond. Therefore, it is a concession given to the accused person who is unable to produce the sureties. The Court is not bound to accept the cash surety in all cases. It may in a suitable case permit the accused person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a bond. Therefore, it is a concession given to the accused person who is unable to produce the sureties. The Court is not bound to accept the cash surety in all cases. It may in a suitable case permit the accused person to deposit a sum of money in lieu of executing a bond. The necessary discretion given to the Court can be seen from the said section itself. It is further obvious from a perusal of the said section that it does not authorise the Court to demand a cash security. At this juncture, the Court shall not lose sight of the primary object behind directing the person appeared before it to execute a bond with or without sureities under Section 88 of the Code being to compel his appearance before the Court henceforth for all adjournments till its culmination. Taking a hypothetical situation where the person, who is affluent and can afford to deposit the amount, might prefer to deposit the amount covered by his personal bond as well as the amounts covered by the bonds to be executed by the sureties and thereafter disappears. The fact that in such an event the bonds can be forfeited by the Court is no valid answer for the object to compel the appearance of the person. The surety or the sureties must have a personal stake in seeing that the accused carries out this obligation in appearing before the Court. In that view of the matter, the forfeiture of bond is not the valid answer. Having regard to the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the Court cannot compel the person to deposit the amount in lieu of executing a bond - be it a personal bond or a bond to be executed by surety. ( 7 ) TURNING to the facts in the instant case, having been scared by the amount involved in the case to be deposited by the accused as well as the sureties, the petitioners are now assailing the very direction to execute a bond to vouchsafe the personal appearance of the accused in the case henceforth for all the future adjournments. Whatever may be the reason, in view of the above discussion, the power of the Court under Section 88 of the Code to direct the accused to execute a personal bond with or without sureties cannot be questioned. Whatever may be the reason, in view of the above discussion, the power of the Court under Section 88 of the Code to direct the accused to execute a personal bond with or without sureties cannot be questioned. It is open to the petitioners to approach the Court below and file the necessary application under Section 70 (2) of the Code or recall the warrant issued by that Court in which event the Court below is directed to consider the same by passing appropriate orders. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition fails and is dismissed.