JUDGMENT Honble Shri Kant Tripathi, J.—The appellants Lallu and Vijay have preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 20.1.2006 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 3, Banda in Misc. Criminal Case No. 7/XI/2005, arising out of S.T. No. 31A/2005, police station G.R.P. Bheemsen, district Banda, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has issued a recovery warrant against each of the appellants for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- being the amount of penalty imposed under Section 446, Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA and perused the record. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. the appeal is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission. 4. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are that both the appellants stood as sureties for the accused Sudhir Kumar @ Vinod son of Surendra Kumar alias Genda Lal resident of Chichauli, police station Auraiya, district Auraiya in S.T. No. 31A/2005 under Sections 307, 356, 379 and 411, IPC, police station GRP Bheemsen district Banda. The said accused absconded, consequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to make recovery of Rs. 30,000/- as penalty against each of the appellants. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not given any show cause notice to the appellants as contemplated by Section 446, Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court registered the case under Section 446, Cr.P.C. on 23.12.2005 and straightway directed issue of recovery warrant. 6. In my opinion, issue of a show cause notice under Section 446, Cr.P.C. to the person, whose bond has been forfeited, before issuing recovery warrant, is mandatory. It is the duty of the Court to give a notice to the person whose bond is or has been forfeited, calling upon him either to pay the penalty or to show cause why it should not be paid. If he pays the penalty in pursuance of the notice, the matter ends. If he does not pay the penalty and offers some explanations showing reasonable causes of non-appearance of the accused, the Court has to consider the causes and pass a reasoned order thereon. If he pays the penalty in pursuance of the notice, the matter ends. If he does not pay the penalty and offers some explanations showing reasonable causes of non-appearance of the accused, the Court has to consider the causes and pass a reasoned order thereon. If the cause shown is not sufficient the amount of the penalty should be determined by the Court and if the penalty so determined remains unpaid, the Court has power to make recovery of the penalty as fine. If the person to whom the show cause notice is served, offers sufficient causes, the Court has power to discharge the notice and remit the penalty. The order remitting the penalty wholly or partly must be based on reasons to be recorded by the Court. 7. The appellants need to be given at least one opportunity to show cause against the proposed action initiated under Section 446, Cr.P.C. specially when it is contended that the appellants were not given any such notice. 8. In view of aforesaid reasons the impugned order directing issue of recovery certificate cannot be sustained. 9. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.1.2006 and the recovery proceedings being done in pursuance thereof, are set aside. The learned lower Court is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing the appellants reasonable opportunity of hearing as well as the opportunity to show cause against the proposed action under Section 446, Cr.P.C. ———