Whether substituted service of summons to accused is permissible in a criminal case?

Section 65 of Cr.P.C. prescribes that if service cannot by the exercise of due diligence be effected as provided in Sections 62, 63 or 64, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some 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. Indisputably the mode of service as prescribed under Section 65 of Cr.P.C. is substituted service viz., by affixture of one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house of the accused. Such a mode of service of summons to the accused could be resorted to when the service of summons to the accused in the manner as contemplated under Sections 62, 63 or 64 cannot be effective. In other words, when the summons to the accused cannot be served under the due process of law, the same could be served by substituted method of service as contemplated under Section 65 of Cr.P.C. No doubt such a mode of service as prescribed under Section 65 of Cr.P.C could be resorted to only after exhausting the other mode of service of summons under Sections 62, 63 or 64 and the same having been found to be ineffective. But the fact of the matter is that the service of summons to the accused other than the personal service is recognized under law. That is to say, service of summons to an accused even in criminal trial could be effected by substituted service by affixture of one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house in which the accused ordinarily resides. There cannot be any dispute that such a mode of service is recognised under law even in criminal trials. Hence the answer to Question No. 2 shall be in the affirmative. Similarly Section 144 of the Negotiable Instruments Act recognises the alternate mode of service of summons to the accused either by speed post or through courier service. In this context, a reference may be made to the provisions contained under Section 144 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in the code of criminal procedure, and for the purposes of this chapter, a Magistrate issuing a summons to an accused or a witness may direct a copy of summons to be served at the place where such accused or witness ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, by speed post or by such courier services as are approved by a Court of Session and Sub-section (2) of Section 144 says where an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the accused or the witness or an endorsement purported to be made by any person authorised by the postal department or the courier services that the accused or the witness refused to take delivery of summons has been received, the Court issuing the summons may declare that the summons has been duly served. Therefore in terms of Section 144 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the service of summons to an accused could be effected by resorting to one of the modes prescribed therein and such a service could be held or declared to be sufficient as in the case of Section 65 of Cr.P.C. It is to be concluded therefore that substituted mode of service to an accused is recognized in a criminal trial whether it be an offence under the IPC or under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Reference in Criminal Petition No. 778/2005

Decided On: 30.06.2005

 Mac Charles (I) Ltd.  Vs.  Chandrashekar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B. Padmaraj and C.R. Kumaraswamy, JJ.

Citations: 2006 (1) ALD Cri 44, III (2006) BC 143, 2005 CriLJ 3700, ILR 2005 KAR 3648, 2006 (2) KarLJ 570, MANU/KA/0272/2005.
Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page