JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Only grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing Cr. revision petition No. 52/91 (31/91) State v. Onkar & Others , did not hear the petitioners and decided revision petit ion against them, even though no notices had been served upon them as required by the law. 3. It appears that the petitioners, Onkar, Banshidhar, Mamraj, Kurda, Heeraram & Mehtab, were arrayed as accused- persons before the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sikar in Cr. Case No. 192/1987. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 12..3.1991 discharged all the petitioners of offences of Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 & 451, IPC. The State preferred a revision petition against the said order in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar and the revision petition was made over to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar for disposal. 4. It appears that the notices of the petitioners were received by one, Bhinwaran and were not personally served upon the petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge treated this service of the notices as proper and proceeded, to decide the revision petition. He accepted the revision petition by order dated 10.12.1992. 5. Sections 62 & 64, Cr.P.C. deal with service of summons. Section 62 reads as follows: "62. Summons how served - (1) Every summons shall be served by a police officer, or subject to such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf, by an officer of the Court issuing it or other public servant. (2) The summons shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons. (3) Every person on whom a summons is so served shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt therefore on the back of the other duplicate." 6. A bare reading of the above section goes to show that summons have to be served on the person summoned by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons and every person on whom a summons is so served, is required to sign on the back of the other duplicate. 7. Section 64, Cr.P.C. deals with contingency when the person so summoned cannot be found. This section reads as follows : "64. 7. Section 64, Cr.P.C. deals with contingency when the person so summoned cannot be found. This section reads as follows : "64. Service when persons 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 a receipt therefor on the back of the other duplicate. Explanation. - A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this section." 8. Upon reading of the above section it transpires that 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 and the person with whom the summons is so left shall sign a receipt on the back of the other duplicate. This section requires that the officer serving the summons must exercise due diligence to find out persons/person to be served. 9. In the present case, the serving officer in his report does not at all indicate that he tried to serve summons/notices personally on any of the petitioners, what to talk of serving notices by the exercise of due diligence ? Summons were served on one, Bhinvaram who claimed to be father of petitioner, Mamraj and family member of the other petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this service cannot be said to be by exercise of due diligence. I, therefore, find that the revision petition was decided without hearing the petitioners in accordance with law. On this short point, this revision petition deserves to be accepted. No other point was raised before me. 10. In view of what I have said above, this revision petition succeeds and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated 10.12.1992 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar for deciding or. revision petition in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall instruct the petitioners to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, on May 23,1994. revision petition in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall instruct the petitioners to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, on May 23,1994. Record of the courts-below may be sent expeditiously to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar so that the same reaches before 23rd May, 1994. A copy of this order may also be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for compliance in accordance with law. 11. The revision petition at hand is allowed to the extent indicated above. *******