Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1237/2011 0.2011 Shri A.K. Saraswat, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R.S. Bais, Dy Government Advocate for the NA/State. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant-accused is praying for quashment of order dated 27.9.2010, passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act) Mandsaur in Criminal MJC No.70/04, thereby the learned Special Judge ordered for recovery of Rs. 1 lac from the present applicant on the ground that on 30.6.2004 he was absent in the Court and and he has filed an application for condonation of his absence under Section 317 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed and, therefore, the trial Court directed recover the full amount of personal bond amounting to Rs.1 lac. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been implicated in the alleged offence with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Earlier he was in abscontion and, therefore, the trial was held against co-accused Akaram and Anwar. Both were convicted by the trial Court but, in appeal co-accused Anwar has been acquitted of the offence under Section 8/18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. After arrest of applicant Punamchanda Patidar trial was held and during trial he remained absent on 30.6.2004 and his application for condonation of absence was dismissed. The learned trial Court, considering the statement of Laxman Katariya (PW5) acquitted the applicant by the judgment dated 27.9.2010, but directed to recover the amount of personal bond amounting to Rs.1 lac. It is submitted that wife of the applicant was not well and, therefore, the applicant could not mark his presence before the trial Court on 30.6.2004. It is also submitted that the amount of Rs.1 lac in respect of surety has already been deposited by the applicant vide receipts dated 7.11.05, 17.10.05, 18.10.05 and 12.11.05. Considering the fact that he has been acquitted, lenient view can be taken in respect of recovery of amount of personal bond and he may be directed to recover only 25% of the total amount. On the other hand, learned Dy Government Advocate has opposed the petition and submitted that the applicant was knowingly absented on 30.6.2004 and, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and directing the applicant to deposit the whole amount of personal bond and prays for its rejection. Considering the fact that the applicant is a poor agriculturist having no source to deposit the whole amount. It is also alleged that the applicant is mentally retarded and, therefore, he could not mark his presence before the trial Court. On due consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that against the surety an amount of Rs.1 lac has already been deposited by the applicant, recovery of Rs.1 lac in respect of personal bond is reduced to Rs.25,000/- on the condition that the same shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from today, failing which this order shall automatically come to an end without reference to the Bench. With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and disposed of. (P.K. Jaiswal, J.) rcs*