ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. -- 1. This is a revision by the complainant/petitioner against the order dated 13.8.1981 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Criminal Revision No. 29/1981, preferred against the order dated 20.4.1981, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior, in Criminal Case No. 2/1981. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision arc thus: The petitioner filed a complaint under section 379, IPC, against the non-petitioner before the trial Court, alleging theft of his Fiat Car No. MPW 8706, said to have been purchased for Rs. 35,000/- from the non-petitioner on 21.3.1981. It was alleged that the car was stolen on 29.3.1981 from Maharajpura. During the course of trial, under section 94, Cr.P.C., a search warrant was issued, and the car was recovered by the police on 16.4.1981 from the possession of the non-petitioner; the car was. kept at Police Station Madhoganj, Gwalior. After hearing, the trial Court acting under S. 451, Cr.P.C. ordered on 20.4.1981 entrustment and the custody of the car to the complainant/petitioner on furnishing security of Rs. 20,000/-. Against this order, the non-petitioner preferred a revision. The revisional Court issued notice to the petitioner, but the summons was not received back after service and, hence, on 2.7.1981 the Court ordered that fresh notice be issued with a note that if the petitioner is not found, the service be effected on some adult member of the family under S. 64 or by affixture in accordance with section 65 Cr.P .C. The serving officer on 6.7.1981 in the presence of two witnesses affixed one copy of the summons and made the following note: "SHRIMANJI, SUMMON KRISHNA GO PAL DIXIT NI: GAYATRI NAGAR KE MAKAN PAR CHASPA KARKE TAMIL KARAYA GAYA." The revisional Court accepted the service as valid service and disposed of the revision in absence of the petitioner. Hence, this revision. 3. Shri Rakesh Saxena, counsel for the petitioner, besides raising contentions on merits, made two legal submissions: the service was bad hence, the order without notice to the petitioner is also bad. The order under S. 451, Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order; hence, the revision was barred under S. 397 (2), Cr.P.C. 4. Hence, this revision. 3. Shri Rakesh Saxena, counsel for the petitioner, besides raising contentions on merits, made two legal submissions: the service was bad hence, the order without notice to the petitioner is also bad. The order under S. 451, Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order; hence, the revision was barred under S. 397 (2), Cr.P.C. 4. After hearing counsel, I am of the opinion, it would not be proper to express any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised, as Shri Shailendra, counsel for the non-petitioner, rightly submitted that if this Court holds that the summons was not duly served, the matter will go back to the revisional Court for deciding the revision afresh. 5. Issue of processes by way of sum mons and warrants to compel appearance is contained in Chapter VI of Cr. P.C. 6. Section 61 relates to form of summons. S. 62 speaks of personal service, which lays down that, as far as practicable, the summons shall be served personally on the person summoned, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons. Therefore, while effecting personal service it is the duty of the serving officer to satisfy himself that the right person has been found to deliver or tender him one of the duplicates of the summons showing him the original, if asked. Section 63 relates to service of summons on corporate bodies and societies, which is not relevant for the present petition. Section 64 lays down that when 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 a receipt on the back of the duplicate. 7. Section 65. prescribes a procedure when service cannot be effected in the manner laid down under S. 62, 63 or 64. Section 65 is extracted below:- "65. Procedure when service cannot be effected as before provided. 7. Section 65. prescribes a procedure when service cannot be effected in the manner laid down under S. 62, 63 or 64. Section 65 is extracted below:- "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." 8. A reading of S. 65, Cr.P.C., shows that the section is in line with Order 5, Rule 19, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, where a service by affixation is made under this section, it is for the Court to make such inquiries as it thinks fit and to apply its judicial mind to declare the summons as duly served, or order fresh service, instead of the summons being automatically declared as duly served. If service by affixation is made, for declaring the service valid under section 65, Cr.P.C., the Presiding Officer has to hold an inquiry as he deems fit. For that an express declaration is necessary before accepting "due service," the endorsement to that effect must indicate that the Presiding Officer has applied his mind and considered that the summons had been duly served. 9. A look to the order-sheet dated 17.7.1981 clearly shows that there was no application of mind, but the service of summons by affixture was accepted automatically without any declaration. The Court even had not seen that the service was effected in the manner as ordered by the Court on 2.7.1981, i.e., if the petitioner was not found at his ordinary residence, the summons had to be delivered to an adult member of his family; if that member refused to take the summons, then only summons was to be affixed on the house. Straightaway, the serving officer, without exercise of due diligence, i.e., without making an attempt or an endeavour to find out the petitioner who was to be served with the summons, affixed the summons. In the circumstances. Straightaway, the serving officer, without exercise of due diligence, i.e., without making an attempt or an endeavour to find out the petitioner who was to be served with the summons, affixed the summons. In the circumstances. such a service cannot be said to be a valid service, and in pursuance of that, the hearing of the revision ex parte, and the order thereon necessarily has to be set aside, and is hereby set aside. As a consequence of that, the case has to go back to the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, for disposing of the revision afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The parties shall appear before the said Court on 10.2.1992; for that no fresh notices need be issued by the revisional Court, as the parties have been noticed here. The revisional Court shall dispose of the revision within a period of one month thereafter. 10. The revision is disposed of in the manner indicated above. The record of the revisional Court be sent back so as to reach the said Court on or before 10.2.1992 along with a copy of the order.