- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. In this appeal learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the State agree that the appeal may be heard finally disposed of today. Hence counsel wers heard.
(2.) THE appellants were sureties of accused Ravi Prakash in S. T. No. 349 of 1990 which was pending in the Court of Sessions Judge at Allahabad. THE accused absented on number of dates with the result that the surety bonds were forfeited on 8-1-1991-and notices were issued to the sureties to show cause why the amount of Rs. 3000 in respect of the bonds may not be realised from the sureties. THE sureties did not file any reply in miscellaneous proceedings which was registered as Crl. Misc. No. 9 of 1991 regarding the forfeiture of sureties bonds. However, it transpires that at a later date the sureties produced the accused Ravi Prakash in the court and trial proceeded. THE record shows that Ravi Prakash as also the co-accused Rakesh alias Puttan were finally discharged on 29-6-1991 by the Special/additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad (Sri Mahesh Chandra ). An application was filed by the appellants that the amount of penalty under the bonds may be remitted. By the impu gned order dated 29-10-1991, the learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad rejected their prayer. The facts narrated above, go to show that the appellants have produced the accused at the trial who has been discharge. Hence it is a case of technical nature for breach of bonds. I am of the view that the penalty amount of Rs. 3000 under the bonds in/espect of each appellant should be reduced to Rs. 500 each. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the penalty amount of Rs. 3000 in respect of each appellant is reduced to Rs. 500 each. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants have already deposited Rs. 3000 each. In case the appellants have deposited this amount, a sum of Rs. 2500 shall be refunded to each of the appellant. Appeal partly allowed. .;