JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners - Sardul Singh & Harmail Singh against the judgment dated 14.12.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 54/98 (9/98) by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order dated 12.1.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 20/80 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioners filed under section. 446(3) Criminal Penal Code. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : On 7.8.1975, FIR No. 127/75 for the offence under sections. 379, 411 IPC was registered against some persons at Police Station Anoopgarh District Sri Gangangar and in that case, police seized a Truck bearing No. DHL 3108 and, thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed against accused- Gurdev Singh and others. During the course of enquiry, the aforesaid Truck was ordered to be given on Supurdginama as well as surety bonds by the learned trial Court and in pursuance of the order of the Court, Jarnail Singh executed the Supurdginama and Gurdayal Singh and Sardul Singh stood sureties for the production of the Truck in question by Jarnail Singh for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and, thereafter, the Truck in question was delivered to the Supurddar Jarnail Singh. On 25.2.1977, the learned trial Court passed order directing the Supurddar Jarnail Singh to produce the Truck in question before the Court, but the same was not produced by Supurdddar Jarnail Singh and, therefore, proceedings under section. 446 Criminal Penal Code were initiated against Supurddar Jarnail Singh and Gurdayal Singh and Sardul Singh, who stood sureties for the production of the Truck in question and ultimately, the amounts of Supurdginama and surety bonds were forfeited. It may be stated here that the criminal case came to an end in November, 1979 and the accused were acquitted. It may further be stated here that since the whole amounts of the Supurdignama and surety bonds were forfeited, therefore, litigation was going on and Supurddar Jarnail Singh died and his son Harmail Singh is one of the petitioners before this Court. Through application under section. 446(3) Criminal Penal Code, it was prayed by the petitioners that penalty of forfeiture of amount of bonds may be reduced. Through application under section. 446(3) Criminal Penal Code, it was prayed by the petitioners that penalty of forfeiture of amount of bonds may be reduced. The said application was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anoopgarh vide order dated 12.1.1998. Aggrieved from the said order dated 12.1.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anoopgarh, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar and thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh through judgment dated 14.12.2001 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order dated 12.1.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anoopgarh. Aggrieved from the judgment dated 14.12.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners. 3. In this revision petition, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the main criminal case has come to an end in November, 1979 and thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of forfeiture of amount of bonds may be reduced. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record. 6. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that criminal case has come to an end in November, 1979, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where penalty of forfeiture of amount of bonds should be reduced to some extent. 7. Therefore, considering the nature of the case and circumstances of the petitioners, I remit the penalty under the bonds to some extent and direct that each of the petitioner shall pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) by way of penalty under the bonds furnished by them. The said amount shall be deposited by each of the petitioner within one month from today. In case the said amount is not deposited by them within the stipulated time, the discretion exercised in favour of the petitioners shall not be effective and the Court then shall be at liberty to recover the whole amount under the bonds from the petitioners.With the above observations, this revision petition is disposed of. In case the said amount is not deposited by them within the stipulated time, the discretion exercised in favour of the petitioners shall not be effective and the Court then shall be at liberty to recover the whole amount under the bonds from the petitioners.With the above observations, this revision petition is disposed of. Revision petition disposed of. *******