N.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) The revisionist stood surety for accused Kali Charan in Criminal Case No. 1161 of 1992 under Section 25 Arms Act. He failed to appear whereupon notice was served. On their application 15 days time was given to them on 25.9.1993 to produce the accused. They did not produce him whereupon the bail bonds were forfeited on 11.10.1993. The order of forfeiture cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. In the surety bonds the revisionist had undertaken for the presence of accused on each date and in default to pay the amount of bond to the State Government. He failed to appear on a number of dates. The revisionist also failed to produce him in spite of time having been granted to them. The surety bonds were therefore rightly forfeited. The next stage after forfeiture of bond was to issue notice to the sureties to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause. No such notice was issued. Recovery warrant was ordered to be issued straightaway. This is against the provisions of Section 446 Criminal Procedure Code. The revision is partly allowed. The order dated 11.10.93 passed by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 1161 of 1992, State v. Kali Charan in so far as it related to the issue of recovery warrant is set aside. The trial Court is directed to issue notice to the sureties to pay the penalty of the surety bonds furnished by them or to show cause and then proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Revisionists Allowed.;