K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for setting aside the order of XIII Addl. C. M. M. , Bangalore in C. C. No. 14198/99. The said case came to be dismissed for default on 4-9-2000. A revision filed against the said order also came to be dismissed in Crl. R. P. No. 394, 2000. From the records it discloses that a private complaint was filed under Section 200, Cr. P. C. against the respondent for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate took cognizance, recorded the sworn statement and ordered issuance of process. In fact the process was paid on several occasions, however notice was not served. For non-payment of registered postal charges, the case was dismissed. Incidentally, there was no representation also on that day. ( 2 ) IN this petition, it is contended that the date was wrongly noted by the counsel. However, I find from the records that the procedure adopted by the trial Court in insisting payment of RPAD charges for issuance of summons appears to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of Ss. 62, 64 and 65 of the Cr. P. C. The procedure for issuance of process do not contemplate issuance of summons to accused by post. Such procedure is permissible for issuance of summons to the witness and not to the accused. ( 3 ) IN the present case if the service of summons has not proved fruitful, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to have issued warrant of arrest be it bailable or non-bailable. Therefore, the posting of a case for payment of RPAD charges being illegal. The consequent dismissal for not taking steps also does not appear to be paper in the eye of law. The case being still at the preliminary stage, the respondent is not yet served. Therefore, issuance of notice of this proceeding to the respondent is dispensed with. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is allowed. The case is remitted to the trial Court for disposal of accordance with law. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .