Judgment N.N.Sharma, J. 1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against orders dated 3-7-1980 and 23-9-1980 passed by the courts below. 2. These proceedings arose under following circumstances : It appears that proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against petitioner on an application of opposite party no. 2, namely, Sri Ramji Saran Saxena in the competent court which were eventually transferred to learned Additional Magistrate, Bareilly. A conditional order was drawn by learned Additional Magistrate which was served on petitioner through one Hari Sumaran Lal who happens to be the younger brother of her husband. The conditional order was made absolute on 23-9-1980. Petitioner carried the matter in revision (Criminal Revision No. 249 of 1978 which was disposed of by Sri Kamal Kishore, learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bareilly on 3-7-1980. The revision was dismissed and it was held that service on Hari Sumaran Lal constituted an effective service on Smt. Munni Devi. Against that order, this application has been filed by petitioner. 3. An affidavit of one Suraj Pal was annexed to this petition which shows that petitioner was not served and the ex-parte order drawn against her was illegal. There is no counter-affidavit traversing the said allegations. I have heard Sri A. B. L. Gaur, learned Advocate for petitioner and Sri Rameshwar Nath, learned Additional Government Advocate for State. 4. Obviously, an order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be served on the person against whom it operates. The mode of service of the order has been laid under Section 134 of the Code which reads as below : "134. Service or notification of order-(1). The order shall, if practicable, be served on the person against whom it is made, in the manner herein provided for service of a summons. The mode of service of the order has been laid under Section 134 of the Code which reads as below : "134. Service or notification of order-(1). The order shall, if practicable, be served on the person against whom it is made, in the manner herein provided for service of a summons. (2) If such order cannot be so served, it shall be notified by proclamation, published in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, direct, and a copy thereof shall be stuck up at such place or places as may be fittest for conveying the information to such person." Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that brother-in-law could not be treated as a member of family of petitioner on whom the service of the said order was made and no opportunity was afforded to her to appear and show cause against the said order. Since the proceedings were ex parte and operated to the manifest prejudice of petitioner, so such order could not be made absolute. 5. A perusal of Section 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall go to disclose that a default on the part of opposite party to comply or apply or reply could expose the party concerned to penalty laid by Section 188 of Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860). 6. Learned Advocate for Statu pointed out that service of the order has to be done in the manner provided by Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as below :- "64. Service when person summoned cannot be found :-Where the person summoned cannot by the exercise of due diligence, be found, the summons may be served by leaving one of the duplicates for him with some adult male member of his family residing with him, and the person with whom the summons is so left shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign of receipt therefor on the back of the other duplicate." There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner evaded service of process or knew of the proceedings or service on her could not be effected despite the exercise of due diligence. 7. Learned counsel for the State relied upon Abdul Jabbar Sarkar v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Calcutta 251. 7. Learned counsel for the State relied upon Abdul Jabbar Sarkar v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Calcutta 251. It appears that in that case there was defiance of order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by petitioner who had knowledge of the operation of the said order which was to be served in accordance with Section 134 of old Code (Act 5 of 1898) of Criminal Procedure which is worded as below : "134. (5) The order shall, if practicable, be served on the person against whom it is made, in manner herein provided for service of a summons. (2) If such order cannot be so served, it shall be notified by proclamation, published in such manner as the State Government may by rule direct, and a copy thereof shall be stuck up at such place or places as may be fittest for conveying the information to such person." 8. The aforesaid provision shows that such order, if practicable has to be served on the person for whom it was made in a manner for service of summons. In case such personal service was not practicable, it could be published through proclamation under sub-Sec. (2) of Section 134 aforesaid. In that case, constable who went to the locality to serve the order could not find the petitioner and instead of resorting to the procedure laid down in Sections 70 and 71 of the Code caused that order to be proclaimed by beat of drum and by attaching a copy thereof to a tree. He also obtained signatures of one Kinu Mondal, a relative and a neighbour of the petitioner in token of service aforesaid. That procedure adopted by the constable was substantially in compliance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. 134 but was treated insufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence of the petitioner who was acquitted. So the aforesaid authority is not helpful to the opposite parties and rather helps the petitioner. 9. The word 'family' has not been defined under Indian Penal Code or Criminal Procedure Code or the General Clauses Act, Even in U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (13 of 1972) the word 'family' as defined under Section 3 (g) in relation to a landlord or tenant means his or her : (i) Spouse husband or wife. (ii) Persons descended in direct line, viz male lineal descendants: (iii) Parents, grand-parents, unmarried, or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter of the tenant. Provided they were normally residing with the tenant before they could be deemed to be part and parcel of tenant's family. A brother or sister of tenant or landlord does not fall within the term family'. So the husband's brother of the petitioner could hardly be included even in such wide definition of family. In Hemendra Nath Chowdhury v. Smt. Archana Chowdhry, 1971 CrLJ 817 , an order for maintenance under Section 488 of the Old Code was drawn against the petitioner Hemendra Nath Chowdhary. THE husband was not personally served in that case and the order drawn was ex parte. It was faulted on the ground that there was no proper service at all in accordance with law and as such the ex-parte order of maintenance dated 21-4-1969 was had and without jurisdiction vitiating the subsequent order. In the said case, reliance was placed upon State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 at page 361 which posited :- "The Rule adopted in (1876) 1 Ch D 426 is well recognized and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power is to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the Act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. THE principle behind the rule is that if this were not, so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted." 10. The said observations are in point in this case also. THEre has been a non-conformance to the procedure established by law resulting in a material prejudice to the petitioner who was exposed to a penalty under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Obviously, when non conformance of service in prescribed mode entails a penalty, the mode of service has to be strictly observed in accordance with law. In Sawan Singh v. Emperor through Hazara Singh, 26 CrLJ 1925, one Smt. Lachcho was served with the order of Sessions Judge through her mother. That service of notice was found defective and insufficient compliance with the mode of service. In Sawan Singh v. Emperor through Hazara Singh, 26 CrLJ 1925, one Smt. Lachcho was served with the order of Sessions Judge through her mother. That service of notice was found defective and insufficient compliance with the mode of service. Under such circumstances, I find that when no attempt had been made to serve the petitioner by the exercise of due diligence, the service has to be held invalid. It is not possible: to hold that Sri Hari Sumaran Lal was the member of the family of Smt. Munni Devi and service on him could be treated as sufficient service on Smt. Munmi Devi. In view of the discussion laid above, impugned orders dated 23-9-1980 annexure-1 and dated 3-7-1980 by learned revising court annexure-2 are quashed and the case is remanded to the Magistrate concerned to proceed in accordance with law.