IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 281 of 2001 Gulsher S/o Bhuru, R/o Lakhanwala, P.S. Sahaspur, Dehradun, And Another. .…. Appellants Versus State .… Respondent April 17, 2009 Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellants u/s 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 2.2.1993 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 1992, State v. Gulsher & Anr., whereby learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge has ordered to issue the realization warrant against the appellants Gulsher and Ram Prasad. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the appellants were the sureties. As the accused did not appear before the court concerned and appellants failed to produce the accused before the court, therefore, their bail bonds were forfeited. Thereafter penalty was imposed on the sureties. Since the appellants/sureties failed to deposit the amount of penalty imposed on them, hence recovery warrants were issued against them. Thereafter vide order dated 2.2.1993, fresh realization warrants were ordered to be issued, against 2 which appellants have come up in appeal before this Court. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants had deposited the amount of penalty in the trial court. But he could not be able to show that what was the total amount of penalty imposed on the appellants nor does he pointed out any document or receipt on the record to establish that the amount of penalty has been deposited by the appellants. 5. Since the appellants, who were the sureties, failed to deposit the amount of penalty, therefore, realization warrants were issued against them. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 2.2.1993, which is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and it requires no interference by this Court. 6. For the reasons recorded above, appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 12.3.1993 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.4.2009 PRABODH