JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Instant appeal filed under Section 449 Cr.P.C. lays challenge to order dated 3.5.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge-III, Mandi, H.P. in Session Trial No. 55/16/15, titled State of H.P. vs. Udham Singh and in respect of State vs. Siri Ram (Annexure A-2), whereby penalty in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- came to be imposed upon the appellant-surety on account of his failure to cause production of the accused in the court during trial.

2. Precisely, facts of the case as emerge from the record are that FIR No. 16 of 2015, dated 8.1.2015, under Section 20 of NDPS Act, was registered against the accused Udham Singh, at P.S. Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Above named Udham Singh filed an application for grant of bail, wherein present appellant stood as surety. Since despite notice, accused Udham Singh failed to put in appearance in trial, vide order dated 20.2.2018, NBWs were issued against him returnable for 31.3.2018. Besides above, court below while passing order dated 20.2.2018, forfeited the surety bonds furnished by the appellant surety and issued notice to him under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. On 31.3.2018, NBWs issued against the main accused Udham Singh were received back unexecuted, but appellant surety Siri Ram came present in person and undertook before the court below that he would cause presence of the accused on the next date of hearing. In the aforesaid background, matter came to be adjourned to 3.5.2018. On 3.5.2018, neither main accused nor the appellant surety came present and as such, court below ordered issuance of fresh NBWs against the accused and vide separate order dated 3.5.2018 (Annexure A-2), imposed penalty in the sum of Rs. 1.00 lac, against the appellant surety and ordered for issuance of warrant of recovery under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant surety. Subsequently, on 22.5.2018, appellant surety caused presence of the accused Udham Singh in the Court and thereafter, he was sent to judicial custody.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 3.5.2018, passed by the court below, appellant surety approached this Court by way of Cr. MMO No. 414 of 2019, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 30.8.2019. In the afore judgment dated 30.8.2019, coordinate Bench of this court observed that once there is specific remedy provided under the criminal Procedure Code to file appeal under Section 449 against the order, if any, passed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. criminal revision petition is not maintainable. In the aforesaid backdrop, appellant surety approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein to quash and set-aside order dated 3.5.2018, whereby court below without affording opportunity of being heard to the appellant surety proceeded to impose penalty to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that appellant surety stood surety for the main accused Udham Singh and accused despite notice, failed to put in appearance in trial. It is also not in dispute that appellant surety after having received notices in terms of order dated 20.2.2018, passed by the court below appeared in the court on 31.3.2018, and assured that on the next date of hearing i.e. 3.5.2018, he would cause presence of the main accused. On 3.5.2018, neither accused nor surety came present and as such, court below ordered for issuance of fresh NBWs against the accused for 18.6.2018. Vide separate order dated 3.5.2018, court proceeded to impose penalty to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lac on appellant surety on account of his failure to cause presence of the accused. Once court below having taken note of the absence of the accused from the trial had already ordered for forfeiture of the surety bond furnished by the appellant surety vide order dated 20.2.2018, there was otherwise no occasion for the court below to call upon the appellant surety to cause