Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. The instant appeal already stands admitted vide order 21.1.2005. Notice regarding suspension of sentence was also given to the advocate General, Haryana. 2. Since it is a short matter, I intend to dispose of the appeal today itself. 3. Appellant Kamlesh Rani alias kamlesh Wati stood surety for an accused namely Prem Chand who was booked in a case FIR No.470 of 2003 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at police Station Yamuna Nagar. She had furnished a bail bond to the extent of rs.25,000/-. The accused did not appear on 4.10.2004 and as such his appeal/surety bond was forfeited to the State. Notice under Sec.446 Cr. P. C. was issued to the appellant. Ultimately warrants of recovery were also issued. The appellant could not deposit the amount and as such vide orders dated 20.11.2001 she was sentenced for six months to civil imprisonment and her warrants of arrest was consequently issued. 4. Pursuant to the above stated order, appellant was taken into custody on 7.1.2005. She is stated to be in Jail since then. Hence this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. S. Brar, learned Assistant Advocate general, Haryana. The entire file has also been perused b y me. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that after receiving the notice under Sec.446 Cr. P. C. the appellant before the trial Court and sought time to produce the appellant but when she could not produce the appellant, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed upon her. He then contends that the appellant is a poor lady and as she could not arrange to deposit the amount of penalty and for this reason she is serving the sentence imposed. The learned counsel then contends that in all fairness a reasonable time should have been given to the appellant to produce the accused Prem chand as the accused belongs to some other State (U. P.) and she had stood surety just on asking of one of her relatives and not for any personal gain. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the appellant had any connivance with the accused because he jumped bail, she in fact made all sincere efforts to trace the accused but with no result. 7. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that the appellant had any connivance with the accused because he jumped bail, she in fact made all sincere efforts to trace the accused but with no result. 7. The learned counsel then contends that even the amount of penalty imposed upon the appellant is on a very higher side and may be reduced to reasonable mount. In support of his arguments he relied upon a judgment rendered in Inder Lal V/s. State of Punjab and another judgment rendered in Babu Singh v. The State of Haryana. The learned counsel then contends that in fact the appellant does not possess any movable or immovable property and as such the report of the Collector, Yamuna Nagar to the effect that she has left her house after selling her property is incorrect. No doubt the appellant has now changed her residence from earlier one which was shown in the surety bond but that fact, by itself would not speak of her mala fide intentions. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel contends that the impugned order be set aside or in the alternative, the amount of penalty be reduced to a reasonable amount. 9. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the appellant stating that once the appellant has stood surety, she cannot take any plea whatsoever and is liable to pay the penalty amount. 10. Admittedly the impugned order imposing penalty is not annexed with the instant appeal but it would not make any difference while disposing the appeal as it is the admitted case of both the sides that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant as penalty. Admittedly, the appellant is serving civil imprisonment and is in custody from the month of January, 2005. She by now has already undergone two months of civil imprisonment. 11. Whatever is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, appears to be convincing. Even otherwise, it appears to me that she was misled by some one who persuaded her to stand surety for an accused. The poverty or inability of the appellant to pay the whole of the amount (Rs.25,000/-) is also to be taken into consideration. Had she been in a position to pay the aforesaid amount, she would not have chosen to serve the civil imprisonment for long two months. The poverty or inability of the appellant to pay the whole of the amount (Rs.25,000/-) is also to be taken into consideration. Had she been in a position to pay the aforesaid amount, she would not have chosen to serve the civil imprisonment for long two months. This indicates that she is certainly not in a position to deposit the same. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and following the view taken by this court in Babu Singhs case (supra), the ends of justice would be adequately met if the amount of penalty already imposed by the trial Court is reduced to Rs.5,000/-. It is so ordered. 13. As the appellant is already serving the civil imprisonment, it is made clear that the moment she deposits the reduced amount (Rs.5,000/-) before the collector or the trial Court, she shall be left off at once. To make it more clear, it is observed that her civil imprisonment shall remain effective till the deposit of the aforesaid amount or upto six months (as already awarded by the trial Court), whichever is earlier. 14. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed except with the modification as indicated above. Appeal allowed partly.