- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. This appeal has been preferred against the order rejecting the application for recalling the order of for feiture of the surety bound which was made and the direc tion to recover the amount was passed by the Court. However, against this order no ap peal is maintainable. Only a revision or on application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be preferred against this order.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant is permitted to convert this appeal into a revision. This having done the hearing of this revision is undertaken in respect of the present applicant. According to the facts available from the order the surety have got the absconding accused arrested from Bom bay and brought to the Court. After production of the accused in the Court he had made an application for recall of the order dated 20-9-86. The application was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 11-3-87 on the ground that after final order for the recovery having been passed the Court is functus officio and cannot pass any order reducing the amount or recall its own order.
(3.) IN the circumstances once the Court comes to the conclusion and has returned a finding of fact that he (surety) had not deliberately avoided to produce the accused by Court and because of their best efforts the attendance of the accused can be procured by the Court. It was he who had visited Bombay and got main accused arrested by Bombay Police. Thus it is apparent that the ap plicant had made sincere efforts to produce the accused in Court. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that he is an agricultural labour and with great difficulty meets two end of his family.;