JUDGMENT : Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2016 vide which the court has forfeited Rs. 50,000/- amount out of Rs. 1,00,000/- personal bond given by the appellant and has issued recovery warrant for recovery of the said amount. 2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that Rs. 50,000/- each has been recovered from the guarantors and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been deposited with the Government. The appellant is a poor person and is not in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. It is also contended that the appellant has in fact paid Rs. 1,00,000/- which the court has recovered from the guarantors. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. His contention is that the appellant has remained absent for more than five months and there is no plea in the appeal that the appellant has paid the amount which has been recovered from the guarantors. It is also contended that the appellant has furnished the personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the court has directed for recovery of only 50% of the amount. The order impugned therefore, does not call for any interference. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced. 5. The appellant stands convicted for offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act vide judgment dated 27.01.2016, the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been recovered from the guarantors. Taking the same into consideration, I deem it proper to partly allow the appeal. The forfeited amount of Rs. 50,000/- is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.