AGARWALA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision application on behalf of two sureties against an order forfeiting their bonds. One Debi Dayal was prosecuted under Section 411, I. P. C. When he was brought in Court he appears to have applied for being released on bail. A bond was taken from the applicants as sureties for securing the presence of Debi Dayal on the next date of hearing and on subsequent dates. Debi Dayal appeared to subsequent dates but no bond was taken from Debi Dayal himself. Later on he absconded and did not appear on 23-2-1950, the date fixed in the case and thereafter could not be found. The bonds filed by the applicants were forfeited in the amount of Rs. 750 /each which was the amount of the bond. They filed an appeal against the order of forfeiture. Their appeal was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE re vision application of the applicants first came up for hearing before our learned brother desai J. who was of the opinion that unless there was a bond executed by the accused himself a bond taken from the sureties was not a bond taken under the Code and therefore could not be forfeited under Section 514, Criminal P. C. But as there were three decisions of our Court against the view which our learned brother was inclined to take, he referred the case to a Bench for decision.

( 3 ) THE sole point for determination in this application is whether the bond can be validly forfeited by the Court below. The bond was in the form mentioned in Form No. 42, Sehedulev. The applicants executed one joint bond agreeing to produce the accused Debi Dayal on all the dates of the preliminary enquiry against him as also in the Court of Session, and covenanted that in case of failure to do so they would forfeit the amount of Rs. 750/- and in default of non-appearance of the accused on any of the dates fixed for his appearance each of them would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 750/- as penalty. On the back of the surety bond there was a form to be filled in by the accused which was, however, not filled in and remained blank. The bond was in the same terms as are mentioned in form No. 42 of Sch. 5 to the Criminal Procedure Code. In this form the bond executed by the sureties under reference as below the bond meant to be executed by the accused. The bond intended to be executed by the accused and that intended to be executed by the sureties are wholly independent of each other and one of them is not affected by anything said in the other. It is not in dispute that forfeiture of the bond has been incurred. The question is whether the non-execution of a bond by the accused vitiates the bond executed by the applicants. The answer depends on a correct interpretation of Sections 499 and 514, criminal P. C. Section 499 provides:

" (1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. (2) If the case so require, the bond shall also bind the person released, on bail to appear when called upon at the high Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge. "

( 4 ) THE section docs not make it necessary that only one bond shall be taken which will be executed both by the accused as well as by the sureties. There is nothing to prevent two bonds being taken, one by the accused and one by the sureties. The form of the bond in the form No. 42 of Schedule 5, indicates that the bonds are to be separate. Again, the section does not lay down that the bond or bonds which are to be executed by the sureties shall have any reference to the bond executed by the accused. The phrase "time and place" mentioned in the section must, in our opinion, refer to the time a