JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Service of the respondent no. 2 has not been effected till date. However, the matter pertains to non compliance of the Court's order and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant thereto, therefore, it is not necessary to hear the respondent no. 2 in this petition. Thus, its service is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner and vide order dated 12.6.2008 was sentenced to six months imprisonment and a fine of Rs.55,000/- which was directed to be paid to the complainant. In addition the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of cost. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner by preferring an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.1, Bikaner. The said appeal was decided vide judgment dated 18.9.2012. The substantive sentence of imprisonment of six months was set aside and instead, the petitioner was directed to be released on probation upon furnishing bonds to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and also to deposit the cost and compensation as directed by the trial court. In compliance of the above directions, the petitioner immediately parted with the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.55,000/- by way of two separate pay orders dated 18.9.2012. 3. The partners of the petitioner firm at the time of trial and before the trial court were Abbas Ali as well as Mohd. Arif. Abbas Ali passed away on 3.10.2013. It appears that the probation bonds and the cost amount could not be furnished before the trial court owing to lack of understanding/in advertence. On account of non furnishing of cost and the probation bonds, the learned trial court has issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner and initiated proceedings under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. 4. It appears that the mistake on the part of the petitioner in furnishing the probation bond and depositing the cost of Rs.5000/- was bona fide. The petitioner had already parted with the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.55,000/- in favour of respondent no. 2 complainant on the date of decision of the appeal itself. It appears that the mistake on the part of the petitioner in furnishing the probation bond and depositing the cost of Rs.5000/- was bona fide. The petitioner had already parted with the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.55,000/- in favour of respondent no. 2 complainant on the date of decision of the appeal itself. In this background this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be given one more opportunity to furnish the requisite probation bond and to deposit the cost in terms of the Appellate court's order dated 18.9.2012. 5. Accordingly, the misc. petition is allowed. The petitioner shall furnish the requisite probation bonds and also deposit the cost amount of Rs.5000/- in terms of the Appellate Court's order dated 18.9.2012 with the trial court within a period of four weeks from today upon which the order issuing warrant of arrest and the proceedings under section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. opened against the petitioner shall stand quashed/dropped. The stay application also stands disposed of. Petition allowed.