JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 against the Order dated 22-6-1985 made by Additional Sessions Judge, shivpuri in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 12/1982, whereby direction has been issued for the recovery of the surety amount forfeited, by the attachment and sale of the moveable property belonging to the surety, as provided under Section 421, ibid. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that appellant Ashok Kumar Verma s/o radhakrishna Verma, r/o Kolaras, district Shivpuri had stood as a surety for accused harcharan in Sessions Trial No. 41/1982, but he failed to produce him on the date given by the Court, which was 2441-1982. Accordingly, the surety-bond of Rs. 2,500/-furnished by surety-appellant Ashok Kumar Verma was forfeited by the Court on that date. A notice was directed to be issued to the surety to show cause as to why the forfeited amount may not be recovered from him However, despite grant of many chances for the purpose the notice could not be served on the surety. By his report dated 11-3-1983, the serving officer reported that the surety had left Kolaras for good and had started living at Shivpuri. Notice was repeated for service. By the report dated 28-1-1984, the serving officer reported that surety Ashok Kumar had absconded for the last nine months. Accordingly, by the impugned order dated 22-6-1985, the learned Additional sessions Judge held that it was not possible to serve the surety. It appears that he dispensed with the service, forfeited the entire amount of Rs. 2,500/- and directed recovery of the same by the coercive process provided under Section 421, Code of criminal Procedure. ( 3. ) WHILE in course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the provisions of Section 446, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which lays down the procedure, when bond has been forfeited. It lays down that when a bond has been forfeited, the Court may issue a notice to show cause to the surety as to why the forfeited amount should not be paid by him. Sub-section (2)of Section 446 provides:- " (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code. Sub-section (2)of Section 446 provides:- " (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code. " The learned counsel for the appellant also drew my attention to the provisions of sections 62 to 65 of the Code, which lay down the procedure for service of the processes of the Court. The scheme laid down in these provisions is to the effect that initially the service has to be made on the person concerned personally. Failing that, Section 65 lays down as follows :- "65. Procedure when service cannot be effected as before provided.- If service cannot by the exercise of due diligence be effected as provided in section 62, Section 63 or Section 64, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides; and thereupon the Court, after making such inquiries as it thinks fit, may either declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service in such manner as it considers proper. " ( 4. ) IT is apparent that in this case, presumably due to the mischief of surety (appellant) Ashok Kumar Verma and/or the serving officers, the service of notice upon him has not been effected. This sorry state of affairs regarding service Of Court processes prevails here since long. Even so, it was necessary for the Court to comply with the provisions of law relating to the service of processes. ( 5. ) IN the instant case, the service of notice having been rendered impracticable, due to the inefficiency or dishonesty of the serving machinery, the learned Additional sessions Judge has written off the service required under the Code, and, instead of following the provisions of Section 65 of the Code reproduced above, has made the directions for recovery of the forfeited surety amount, by attachment and sale of the moveable property, in the absence of any valid service of show cause notice. What could have been done possible was to direct the serving officer of the police Station concerned, if necessary, through the Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, to get the service effected by affixing the notice on conspicuous part of the residence of the person or the last known residence of the surety. The surety could not have altogether absconded, he having filed the present appeal through his counsel If proper steps are taken by the police, his address can even be ascertained now. The learned Additional sessions Judge could have alternatively made such enquiries, as he thought proper, and then declared that the notice has been duly served. This essential requirement of law having not been followed, unfortunately the impugned Oder dated 22-6-1985 of the trial Court could not be upheld. Accordingly, it is required to be set aside. ( 6. ) THE result is, that this appeal is allowed. The impugned Order dated 22- 6-1985 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri is, hereby, set aside, and the lower Court is directed to follow the onwards provisions of Section 65 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 before directing levy of the forfeited amount under Section 421 of the code. The appeal is decided accordingly. Appeal allowed.