V.D.CHATURVEDI, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 15 -12 -1988 whereby the learned S.D.M., Roorkee, district Saharanpur made his order dated 20 -11 -1988 absolute on the report of Constable No. 468 Kaloo Ram that the revisionist and others had refused to receive the conditional order dated 29 -11 -1988. Relying upon the said report of Constable Kaloo Ram, the learned Magistrate made his conditional order absolute; hence this revision.
(2.) I have heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, holding brief of Sri G.C. Saxena, for the revisionist and the learned A.G.As. S/S Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot and A.K. Tewari. There is nothing on record to show that the conditional order dated 29 -11 -1988 passed under Section 133, Cr.P.C. was served personally upon the revisionist. The impugned order shows that it was on the report dated 22 -11 -1988 of P.S. Manglaur that the conditional order dated 29 -11 -1988 was passed under Section 133, Cr.P.C. to remove the nuisance. The constable Kaloo Ram reported on 3 -12 -1988 that the revisionist Virendra and others had refused to receive the said order; hence upon such report, the impugned order dated 15 -12 -1988 was passed whereby the conditional order was made absolute. The proceedings appear to have been done in a haste. Before making the conditional order an absolute, it was incumbent upon the S.D.M. to confirm whether the order dated 29 - 11 -1988 was served or not in accordance with provisions of Section 134, Cr.P.C.
(3.) SECTION 134, Cr.P.C. lays down that the conditional order shall be served upon the person against whom it is made, in the manner provided for service of a summons.;