1. In this case we do not think that the Deputy Magistrate was correct in looking only to the moveable properties of the proposed sureties, It is true that, under Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, so far as a surety's property is concerned, the bond can only be enforced by attachment and sale of the moveable property belonging to such person.' But that does not mean that the sufficiency of the surety is to be regarded simply from the point of view of the moveable property which he possesses. It is obvious that a man may possess Rs. 1,000 to-day when he passes a bond and get rid of it to-morrow when the bond is passed and have no property against which the Court can proceed. On the other hand, if he has immoveable property, though that cannot be attached under Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, it is nevertheless a much better safeguard. A man can always raise money on his immoveable property if it is not encumbered; and he would probably prefer to do that than go to jail in the event of his bond being forfeited. The sufficiency, therefore, of a surety should be considered from a general view of his stability and the property which he holds. With regard to the closing passage of the Deputy Magistrate's judgment in which he says that some of the sureties proposed are said to be incapable of checking the accused should he revert to his old course of life, we may point out that it is impossible to put an effective moral check upon a man. All that the Court can do is to forfeit any bond which may have been passed, in case the accused reverts to his old course of life. At the same time, the question of relationship may have some relevance, as pointed out by the Additional Magistrate in his letter to this Court. With these remarks, we set aside the order passed and remand the case to the District Magistrate for a further consideration of the sufficiency of the sureties offered in this case. The matter should be disposed of as soon as possible.