JUDGMENT 1. - In view of identical question of law being involved for consideration of this Court, all these revision petitions are being dealt with and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and ready reference. I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts stated in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.290/96, (JDA v. Om Prakash & Anr.) and which shall be treated as a main case. 2. The petitioner has come up before this Court against the impugned order dated 7.3.96 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur whereby, he dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner against the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 31, 32 & 33 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 4.4.1984, Maksood Ahmed, Enforcement Inspector, Jaipur Development Authority was on routine patrolling and he found that in Ganesh Colony, Kalwar Road, the accused non-petitioner was raising construction of 3 rooms, latrine, bathroom measuring 40' x 25' without obtaining permission from the Jaipur Development Authority. The Enforcement Inspector issued a notice under section 32 of the Act, 1982 to the accused non-petitioner asking him to stop the construction work and to remove all the illegal and unauthorized constructions but the accused non-petitioner did not comply with the notice and continued the construction work which was found on the site on the subsequent dates when the inspection of the site was made. The Enforcement Inspector had also prepared a site plan at the time of inspection. Thereafter, petitioner JDA filed a complaint/application to the trial Court against the accused non-petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Act. On the application/complaint of the complainant JDA, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence against the accused non-petitioner and issued summons to him on various dates but the service could not be effected on the accused. On 7.3.96, the case was fixed before the trial Court for service of summons but the trial Court dismissed the complaint and quashed the proceedings against the accused-non petitioner. Being aggrieved against the said impugned-order, the petitioner JDA has come up before this Court in the instant revision petitions. 4. On 7.3.96, the case was fixed before the trial Court for service of summons but the trial Court dismissed the complaint and quashed the proceedings against the accused-non petitioner. Being aggrieved against the said impugned-order, the petitioner JDA has come up before this Court in the instant revision petitions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the state and also perused the impugned order dated 7.3.96 passed by the trial court. In my view, the trial court has erred in dismissing the complaint of the petitioner JDA without following the provisions of Section 65 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was the bounden duty of the trial Court to have summoned the accused by affixing the notice on the premises of the accused or issue warrants for fresh service since the service of summons could not be effected on the accused in normal course. In the instant case the trial Court has not followed the procedure in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner for no fault on its part and on account of its failure to effect service of process on accused and has thus committed material irregularity and jurisdictional error in dismissing the complaint and in dropping the proceedings. In this context. I deem it appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 65, Cr.PC. which stipulates, as under- "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 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.'' 5. Prima facie, I am of the considered view that since service of summons could not be effected on the accused, in ordinary manner in view of process server's report, It was expected of the trial Court to have followed the procedure as envisaged in Section 65 of the Code as aforesaid by directing substituted service of summons by affixation on any conspicious part of the property of the accused non-petitioner but, the said procedure was dispensed with which obviously is contrary to law. The said procedure adopted by the trial Court is also contrary to the principles of Natural Justice since, it is the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that no person against whom there is any accusation on the basis of a complaint should be condemned un-heard.As a result of above discussions, All these revision petitions stand allowed. The impugned orders dated 7.3.96, 22.9.94, 26.5.95, 24.5.95, 3.4.96, 3.4.96' and 10.4.96 passed by the ACJM No. 1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur in Criminal Case Nos. 118/84, 591/87, 1127/86, 1798/87, 10/85, 267/84 and 254/85, respectively are quashed and set-aside. As a result, the applications/complaints of JDA against the accused are restored to their original number and the proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law before the concerned trial Courts de-novo. The trial Court is directed to decide the matters afresh procuring the attendance of the accused in accordance with the procedure as stipulated under the provisions of the of the Code particularly in Section 61 to 65, Cr.PC. in Chapter VI and the trial Court is directed to proceed in the matters as expeditiously as possible and shall deal with and decide the aforesaid complaints pending before it expeditiously preferably before 30th May, 1998. The complainant-Authority is directed to appear in the aforesaid matters before the concerned trial Court at Jaipur through its authorised representative on 9th February, 1998. Both the parties i.e. the complainant-Authority as well as the accused are directed to fully co-operate in the pending matters before the trial Court for the purpose of recording evidence as well as procedural requirements of the Act in accordance with the directions of the trial Court is issued from time to time. 6. With the observations made above, all these revision petitions stand allowed and disposed of.> . *******