appearance before the trial court when summoned and consequently should not be entitled to any relief without first submitting to the trial court. However, this court finds no merit in the argument as raised. It is true that the petitioners were declared as proclaimed persons, but this court takes notice of the fact that the address of the petitioners was shown to be at Yamunanagar which clearly was an incorrect address given. Respondent No. 2 was aware that the petitioners were residents of Australia, however with a mala fide intention did not choose to give the correct address. Section 82 Cr.P.C. clearly states that service must be effected upon a person, and if found evading service, proclamation must be published as prescribed, namely shall be published as follows- a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or home-stead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house . When the petitioners do not reside in India, a fact well within the knowledge of respondent No. 2 ,then any service effected in Yamunanagar would not be a proper service. There is also nothing on record to show that an attempt was made to serve the petitioners at the residence where they ordinary reside either through publication in newspapers or through the embassy. Hence, the order declaring them as proclaimed offenders is improper and is hereby set aside. Reliance
