Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. None has appeared for the appellant. 2. Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae in this case. He shall be paid fee as per rules. 3. Shamsher was facing trial for having in his possession 800 grams of opium. He was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.5.1995 in Cr.M. No. 7081-M. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar vide his order dated 22.11.1995, asked the accused to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount. Banarsi Dass, the present appellant furnished surety bonds on 23.11.1995. Accused Shamsher Singh was released on bail. After being released on bail, he absconded on 7.12.1995. Notice was served on Shamsher Singh (Banarsi Dass ?) under Section 446 Cr.P.C. to produce Shamsher Singh, but the present appellant could not produce Shamsher Singh. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on him. In the surety bond, appellant Banarasi Dass had shown that he had 5 killas of agricultural land in Village Hansi. Clerk of D.C. Office was summoned with record pertaining to the ownership of agriculture land owned by appellant Banarsi Dass. It came out that Banarsi Dass did not possess any agriculture land. 4. The trial Court after adducing evidence vide order dated 6.3.1996, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 446(2) Cr.P.C. on appellant Banarsi Dass. As Banarsi Dass could not pay this amount, he was asked to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of six months. 5. Learned counsel for the State has stated that what weighed with the trial Court for imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, was that a fictitious jamabandi had been produced by appellant Banarsi Dass to show that he was owner of 5 acres of land. No leniency should be shown to him. 6. Mr. A.S. Virk, Amicus Curiae for the appellant has stated that lenient view be taken, as appellant is a poor man. The order of the trial Court has been hanging on the head of the appellant since 6.3.1996. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. By falsely stating to the Court that he owned 5 acres of land, appellant Banarsi Dass had misstated before the Court. The order of the trial Court has been hanging on the head of the appellant since 6.3.1996. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. By falsely stating to the Court that he owned 5 acres of land, appellant Banarsi Dass had misstated before the Court. If the appellant had been fair to the Court and stated that he did not own any land, probably the trial Court would have taken a lenient view, and directed accused Shamsher Singh to produce some other surety. I do not find any merit in the appeal.Dismissed.