A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) ORDER of acquittal passed by icarned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Bhubaneswar (in short, J. M. F. C.) in G. R. Case No. 1875 of 1991 is the subject-matter of challenge in this application by the informant, Maguni Charan Behera (opposite party No. 2) (described as accused hereinafter) faced trial before the learned J. M. F. C. on the accusation of having committed an offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, I. P. C. ' ). Law was set into motion on the accusation of petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the informant' ). ( 2 ) IT is not necessary to set out the factual position in detail. The essential features are as follows: by order dated 15-2-1993, the learned J. M. F. C. directed issue of summons to the chargesheet witnesses fixing their appearance to 15-3-1993. On that date no witness was present. Order was again passed to issue summons to the charge sheet witnesses 1 to 4 fixing 3-4-1993. The process was repeated on 3-4-1993, 29-4-1993 and 11-5-1993. Though the reason for direction to issue fresh summons is not forthcoming from record, it is apparent from the order-sheet that on the relevant dates no witness was present. On 28-5-1993, it was noticed that service of summons issued to charge sheet witnesses 1 to 4 was effected by affixture, as according to the process server, charge-sheet witness No. 2 refused to accept her summons, as well as the summons issued to other three, who were her husband and sons; Bailable warrant, of Rs. 100/- was issued against those four. Fresh summonses were directed to be issued to remaining witnesses fixing 3-9-1993 for trial. On 3-7-1993 it was noticed than the bailable warrants issued had not been received back after execution. The Inspector-in-charge was directed to take steps in the matter, and direction was given for issue of fresh summonses to the remaining witnesses fixing 9-8-1993 for trial. On that date, it was noticed that the summons had not been served on charge-sheet witness No. 5. The Inspector-in-charge of Mancheswar Police Station intimated that he was engaged in law and order duty and prayed for adjournment. The matter was taken up on 11-91993. It was noticed that no witness was present and service report had not been received. Fresh summonses were directed to be issued fixing 26-8-1993 for trial. The Inspector-in-charge of Mancheswar Police Station intimated that he was engaged in law and order duty and prayed for adjournment. The matter was taken up on 11-91993. It was noticed that no witness was present and service report had not been received. Fresh summonses were directed to be issued fixing 26-8-1993 for trial. On 23-3-1993 on witness was present and the bailable warrants issued against charge sheet witness Nos. 1 to 4 had not been received after execution. Direction was given for issue of non-bailable warrants against charge sheet witness Nos. 1 to 4 and for issue of summons to other witnesses fixing 20-9-1993 for trial on 20-9-1993 one Ranjan Kumar Behera charge sheet witness No. 6 was examined, cross-examined and discharged as P. W. 1 a memorandum was filcd by the Assistant Public Prosecutor (in short, A. P. P. T) indicating that though the informant was always coming to Court on the date fixed, he was deliberately not turning up to give evidence. It was indicated that the charge-sheet witnesses Nos. 2 to 4, who are son and daughters of the informant, were also not turning up to Court to give their evidence deliberately at the instance of informant. Accordingly it was stated that it was not possible on the part of A. P. P. to bring them to the Court for their evidence. It was further indicated that in view of statement of P. W. 1, other charge-sheet witnesses need not be examined. The learned J. M. F. C. directed the matter to be placed on 21-9-1993 for consideration of the memorandum. On the said date, evidence from the side of prosecution was treated as closed, and later on statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Codet) was recorded and argument; were heard at 3 p. m. Prayer was made by the informant at 3. 45 p. m. to recall the order of closing the prosecution evidence and to record his evidence. The prayer was not accepted, and the judgment was delivered at4 p. m. directing acquittal of the accused under section 242 (1) of the Code. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. S. K. Misra, learned counsel for the informant, the course adopted by the learned A. P. P. and learned J. M. F. C. is somewhat unusual. The prayer was not accepted, and the judgment was delivered at4 p. m. directing acquittal of the accused under section 242 (1) of the Code. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. S. K. Misra, learned counsel for the informant, the course adopted by the learned A. P. P. and learned J. M. F. C. is somewhat unusual. It is submitted that there was no material to show service of any summons or warrant on the charge sheet witnesses 1 to 4. The charge-sheet witness No. 2 had rightly refused the summons on behalf of others, and her refusal cannot be equated with service in accordance with law. The basis for filing the memorandum as indicated by the learned A. P. P. is without any material. There was nothing before him to show that there was any deliberate intent to avoid appearance. The learned counsel for the accused opposite party No. 2, however, supported the order. According to him, section 64 of the Code provides the mode of service of summons, when persons summoned cannot be found, and refusal by charge-sheet witness No. 2 was sufficient to hold that there was valid service of summons. It is submitted that the expression adult male member also includes a female by application of section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (in short, the General Act ). ( 4 ) I shall first deal with the question of service of summons. Section 64 of the Code is relevant in this regard. It 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 therefore on the back of the other duplicate. Explanation-A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this section. Explanation-A servant is not a member of the family within the meaning of this section. Before the Court can proceed to hold that there was proper offer of summons in terms of section 64 there must be material to show that the person summoned against was not found by exercise of due diligence and the summons was 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, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt therefore on the back of the other duplicate. It is sufficient to leave one of the duplicates with any adult male member, if the person summoned was not found after exercise of due diligence. There must be an attempt to find out the person summoned against and the process servers report should show that an attempt was made. The standard of due diligence should at least be the same as is required in civil cases. Thus, there must real endeavour to serve and with that object the process server must make a diligent search for the person summoned. Temporary absence is not enough. If there is absence of reasonable diligence in attempting to serve personally, and the case is one of temporary absence, section 64 of the Code has no application. Service under the said provision is permissible only when person to be served cannot be found by the exercise of due diligence. In the absence of proof that the person summoned cannot, after exercise of due diligence, be found, service on an adult, male member of the family residing with him is not legal. ( 5 ) IN the case at hand the process servers report merely shows that the charge sheet witnesses 1, 3 and 4 had gone out, Charge sheet witness No. 2, who is a female, was offered the summons on their behalf which she refused to accept. The question is whether by application of section 13 of the General Act offer of summons to a female is permissible. Section 13 provides that in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females. The question is whether by application of section 13 of the General Act offer of summons to a female is permissible. Section 13 provides that in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words importing the masculine gender shall be taken to include females. The section deals with the expressions used in one particular gender and widens its scope so as extend it to the other gender. The expression used in section 64 of the Code is some adult male member. Nothing prevented the legislature from providing the expression adult member. In the context in which the word male has been used in section 64 of the Code clearly reflects legislative intent that the summons may be served by leaving one of the duplicates intended for the person summoned with some adult male member. Offer to a female member is not sufficient. At this juncture it is necessary to have a look an Order 5, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, C. P. C. T ). The C. P. C. Amendment Act of 1976 substituted new Rule 15 in place of old one. Vide Fifty-Fourth Report of the Law Commission of India (at page 123), the word malet was recommended to be dropped having regard to the increase in literary and status of women during the last few years. Accordingly in Rule 15, service on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him is provided for. But the position is different in section 64 of the Code. Legislature has left the position undisturbed in the Code, which replaced the Old Code of 1898. ( 6 ) THE combined effect of lack of attempt to find out the person summoned and the offer to an adult female member is that in reality there was no attempt to serve the summons on the person summoned. Additionally there was no material before the A. P. P. , as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for State that there was no material to show that the son and daughterst of the informant were not coming to Court to give their evidence deliberately at the instance of the informant. Additionally there was no material before the A. P. P. , as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for State that there was no material to show that the son and daughterst of the informant were not coming to Court to give their evidence deliberately at the instance of the informant. Fallacy of the statement made in the memorandum by the A. P. P. is apparent from the fact that the charge-sheet witness No. 2 is the mother of witnesses Nos. 5 and 4, and wife of charge sheet witness No. 1. ( 7 ) IN the peculiar circumstances of the case, the order of acquittal is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to learned Magistrate for fresh trial. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 23-1-1995 without further notice. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that the charge sheet witnesses 1 to 4 shall appear before the learned Magistrate on the aforesaid date. Other charge-sheet witnesses, who have not been summoned, shall be summoned for appearance. The learned Magistrate shall make all efforts to finalise the proceeding before the end of February, 1995. The revision application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Revision allowed. Matter remitted for fresh trial .