D. P, Sood, J.—This order shall dispose of all the criminal revision petitions, seven in number, as a common question of law and fact has arisen. Also, petitioner in all the cases is the same.

2. The facts, in brief, are that in a criminal case State v. M. S Khan and others, under section 452 of the Penal Code, S/Shrl M. S Koan, Sat Dev Singh. America Prashad, Chhaju Chauhan, Mahesh Prashad, Moti Lai and Harinder Chauhan were facing trial in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, District Solan. The petitioner, Narata Ram had stood surety for each one of the seven accused and had executed the surety bond, undertaking that he would see that the accused appear on every date of hearing in the case in the Court and in case any default was made in that respect, he would be bound to pay Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousands) as penalty. All the seven accused have absconded and are not being served.

3. A notice was, accordingly issued to the petitioner for the production of all the accused persons on 25th May, 1992 He showed h s inability to do so. The surety bond to the tune of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousands) of the petitioner in respect of each of the seven accused, were forfeited to the State. Seven show-cause notices were issued under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner did not tile reply. The petitioner again could not produce either of the accused-persons despite opportunities having been given to him to produce them. The learned Magistrate, vide his order dated July 1, 1992, imposed penalty of Rs 2,100 upon the petitioner in respect of each one of the surety bonds.

4. The petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate in the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The appellate Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the order passed bythe trial Court in respect of each one of the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 26th August, 1992, the petitioner has approached this Court, for seeking appropriate relief.

5. I have heard Shri R. S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and also carefully examined the record.

6. The fact that surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 in respect of each one of the accused persons, was executed by the petitioner and that he bad undertaken to produce the accused persons before the Court and the fact of their failure to appear on any one of the dates, fixed for hearing is not disputed. Also, there is no controversy that the responsibility of surety arises from the execution of the surety bond by him and it is not contingent upon execution of a personal bond by the accused Thus, the forefeiture of the personal bond of the accused is not a condition precedent to the forefeiture of the bonds executed by the sureties. (See t Ram Lai v. State of UP., 1980 Cr LJ 826). Perusal of section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates two stages. The first stage is for the Court to satisfy itself that bond has been forfeited. The second stage relates to the realisation of the forefeiture amount of the bond. For this purpose, it has to give him notice either to pay the penalty or to show- cause why it should not be paid. It is imperative to note that if there are sufficient circumstances before the Court, on the basis of which it can accept or reject the cause shown, it need not take any evidence.

7. It is also settled law that a notice to the surety cannot be issued, unless the order of forefeiture is passed. Thereafter, the court has to consider the grounds made out by the surety in support of his case and after considering the case, on merits, if the court is dis-satisfied with the reasons shown, an order has to be made for the realisation of the penalty. I am supported in my view by the observations made in the case of Dhanvir v. State, 1975 Cr LJ 1437.

8. In the instant case, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 25th May, 19^2, pursuant to the order passed by the Sub- Divis