JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 8.7.93, passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, by which the learned Magistrate reviewed his order dated 19.4.93 and ordered for summoning of the petitioners by bailable warrants and held that the service effected earlier on the petitioners was sufficient. 2. Complainant Devanand (respondent No. 2) filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur, against Mr. M.K. Goyal, Additional Superintendent of Police (City), Jodhpur, Shri Kan Singh and Smt. Chandralekha for the offence, under Sections 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code. The complainant examined himself, his sister Usha Rani Parihar and one Gajendra Singh under Sections 200 and 202 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, by his order dated 10.9.92, took cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 Indian Penal Code and issued summons for procuring the presence of the accused. The summons on the accused could not be served. On 19.4.93, the summons issued against the petitioners came with the report that the copy of the complaint was not annexed with the summons and, therefore, they were not accepted by the accused. On 19.4.93, the learned Magistrate considered the report of the Process Server, looked into the summons and opined that the service of the summons on the accused was not sufficient as the summons were not enclosed with the copy of the complaint and the learned Magistrate ordered for issuance of fresh summons. The order dated 19.4.93 reads as under:- 19&4&93& ifjoknh mifLFkr vfHk;qDrx.k Jherh pUnzdyk o Jh dkuflag ds lEeu vkne rkehy vk, gS ftl ij fjiksZV gS fd lEeu ds lkFk bLrxkls udysa ugha gSA vr% iqu% lEeu tkjh gksA bLrxklk dh udysa lk/k is'k dh tkosaA vfHk;qDr M.K. dk lEeu ykSVdj ugha vk;k gSA iqu% tkjh fd;k tk;sA i=koyh ---------- 9-7-93 dks is'k gksA In pursuance to this order, fresh summons were issued against the accused-petitioners. On 8.7.93, the learned Magistrate again considered the same notices issued earlier, regarding which the order dated 19.4.93 was passed and treated the service as `sufficient' and ordered for the issuance of bailable warrants against the accused. On 8.7.93, the learned Magistrate again considered the same notices issued earlier, regarding which the order dated 19.4.93 was passed and treated the service as `sufficient' and ordered for the issuance of bailable warrants against the accused. This order has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that when once the service was not considered as `sufficient' and the learned Magistrate ordered for issuance of the fresh summons then he was not competent to review his own order and again to hold that the service on the accused-petitioners was sufficient and the order, passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent- complainant, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The matter regarding the service of the summons on the accused-petitioners was considered by the learned Magistrate and the order dated 19.4.93 was passed and service on the respondents was not found sufficient by the learned Magistrate himself, which is clear from the Order-sheet dated 19.4.93 and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ordered for the issuance of the fresh summons. When once the learned Magistrate had already ordered that the service on the accused-petitioners was not sufficient then he could not have, later on, treated that service as sufficient and was not justified in ordering for the issuance of bailable warrants against the accused. The order dated 8.7.93, passed by the learned Magistrate, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioners, is allowed and the order dated 8.7.93, passed by the learned Magistrate treating the service of summons as sufficient and issuing the bailable warrants against the petitioners, is quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******