THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1989 OF 2004. DATED: 20-10-2009. Between: Mohd. Ghulam Rasool … Petitioner and Shameem Sultana …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1989 OF 2004. ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 08-11-2004, in Crl.M.P.No.1254 of 2004 in M.C.No.72 of 2004, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order, dated 24- 05-2004, passed in M.C.No.72 of 2004, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that summons have not been properly served on the petitioner, that the petitioner came to know about granting of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent herein on 23-08-2004 through legal notice, dated 10-08-2004 and that as he was not aware of the proceedings, he filed the above petition to give an opportunity to contest the case, but that petition was dismissed on the ground that as the petitioner knows about the proceedings pretty well, there are no grounds to set aside the ex parte order. He further contended that procedure under Sections 61 and 62 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. As seen from the order in M.C.No.72 of 2004, it is clear that notice issued to the petitioner herein was returned as not claimed. Therefore, he was set ex parte and the matter was posted to 07-05-2004 for the evidence of the respondent herein. After recording the evidence, an amount of Rs.1,000/- was granted to the respondent herein towards maintenance. 4. Section 61 Cr.P.C. reads thus: “Form of Summons- Every summons issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, in duplicate, signed by the Presiding officer of such Court or by such other office as the High Court may, from time to time, by rule direct, and shall bear the seal of the Court.” Section 62 Cr.P.C. reads thus: “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 serves shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt therefor on the back of the other duplicate.” In none of the sections, service of summons to the respondent in a maintenance case can be sent by registered post. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein relied on a decision reported in GUTHIKONDA SRI HARI PRASADA RAO V GUTHIKONDA LAKSHMI RAJYAM AND OTHERS [1], wherein it was held thus: “A thorough search of the Criminal Rules of Practice both the rules under the old Criminal Rules of Practice and the Criminal Rules of Practice issued in 1966 shows that they do not provide for service of summons in a maintenance proceedings by registered post. Naturally the procedure contemplated by Ss.61 and 62 Cr.P.C. has necessarily to be followed. In view of this clear position of law, the present petition has necessarily to be allowed.” As there was no provision for service of summons to the respondent in a maintenance case by registered post in Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1966, this Court has come to that conclusion. But Rule 13-A was incorporated in Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular orders, 1990, which reads thus: “13A-(1) In all the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) and under Section 138-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Central Act 26 of 1881) and in any other case where the summons may be ordered to be served through the post office by registered post with acknowledgment due, sent to the address of the respondent or the accused therein as the case may be, in the manner provided under Rule 13 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 and in such cases the postal employee tendering the notice shall be deemed to be the serving officer within the meaning of Rule 13 of the said Rules. 2. Before directing the service of notice by post, the complainants shall be required to bring to the Court sufficient number of copies of the summons, the complaint and envelopes duly typed with the name and address of the person on whom the summons sought to be served and bearing adequate postage for sending the article by registered post with acknowledgment due.” From the above provision, it is clear that notice can be sent by registered post to the respondent in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the contention that when the notice sent to the petitioner herein was unclaimed, it is deemed service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and the said order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:20-10-2009 Hsd [1] 1992 CRL.L.J. 1594