D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.)THIS criminal revision petition was admitted to a hearing by a Division Bench, perhaps, for the reason that the case involved an important question of law viz. whether the appellate Court bearing appeal under Section 515, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), had the power to remand the case after setting aside the order of the trial Magistrate passed under Section 514 thereof.
(2.)ONLY such facts, as directly bear upon the question aforesaid, deserve to be noticed and these can be stated thus: The Petitioner Mohan Singh bad stood surety for one Sucha Singh and had executed a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ - undertaking to produce Sucha Singh accused, who was released on bail on the undertaking given by Mohan Singh in his aforesaid bond, on all hearings of the case, pending against him in the Court of Shri B. M. Modi, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Zira. Sucha Singh accused failed to appear in that Court on 17th January, 1970. When the accused persisted in absenting Herself on the subsequent hearings in the case as well, Mohan Singh Petitioner his surety, was called upon to produce him. He was given several, opportunities to do so. Eventually, the Court finding no other option available to it, forfeited his surety bond and ordered recovery of Rs. 1,000/ - out of the bond amount, vide its order dated 11th February, 1971.
Against that order, Petitioner Mohan Singh went up in appeal under Section 515, Code of Criminal Procedure to the Sessions Judge. The main point that was urged on behalf of the surety before the Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the appeal was that no show -cause notice, as envisaged under Section 514 of the said Code, had been issued to him in question before ordering the recovery of the amount from the surety bond. It was also urged before him that surety bond was not validly attested and, therefore, the undertaking given in the surety bond was not binding upon the surety. The Sessions Judge set aside the order of the trial Magistrate mainly for the reason that the requisite notice under Section 514 of the Code, which was a mandatory one, had not been issued and, therefore, the subsequent proceedings, which culminated in the order under appeal, stood vitiated. He, how -ever, remanded the case to the trial Court for doing the needful in accordance with the provisions of Section 514 of the Code and also directed it to go into the validity of the bond.

(3.)THE surety, Mohinder Singh Petitioner in this revision petition, has challenged that part of the said order of the appellate Court whereby it remanded the case to the trial Court to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 514 of the Code.