B.D.Gupta, J. - (1.) The learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri whose order is sought to be revised by this petition, appears to have taken a very curious view of the matter. Het Ram, the third applicant in this revision, was an accused in a case under section 395/397 I.P. which had been fixed for hearing before the learn d Judge on and from the 2nd of February, 1967. Long before, by an order of the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, dated the 28 h of July, 1966, Het Ram had been granted bail subject to his executing: a personal bond for Rs 1500 and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Di-it Magistrate (Judicial) Mainpuri. Following this order Het Ram excused a personal bond and the xemaining two applicants viz. Sri Ram and Man Singh sood sureties for Het Ram in a sum of Rs. 1500 each. The sureties were accepted by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Mainpuri and Het Ram was, therefore, released on bail.
(2.) It is not clear as to when and how Het Ram was rearrested before the 2nd of February, 1967 but there is no controversy that Het Ram had been arrested and was in detention in Etah Jail since before the 2nd of February, 1967. The result was that when the Sessions Trial was taken up on the 2nd of February, 1967 Het Ram was not present. The Additional District Government Counsel filed an application before the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge stating that Het Ram had been arrested and was in Etah Jail and praying that Het Ram be summoned through special messenger. The trial had to be adjourned and the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge passed the following order with reference to Het Ram : "The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and bonds are forfeited. Issue notice to the sureties to show cause why the amount of forfeited bonds be not realised from them. Allowed adjournment. Summon the accused at once through special messenger fixing 3 2-1967."
(3.) Notices were accordingly issued in response to which objections were filed. The substance of the objection was that since Het Ram was on detention in Etah Jail it was not possible for the sureties to secure his attendance, nor was it possible for Het Ram to present himself, in the court of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge m the 2nd February, 1967 he larned Judge did not accept this objection and by order dated the 31st of July, 1967 directed Het Ram, as also each of the sureties, to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as penalty within seven days. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.;