Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"RPAD not returned. Issue arrest warrant as process paid on 17-6-87 to the address furnished in the memo by 10.8."

At this juncture, it is necessary to point out here that there is nothing to show that the notices were sought to be served as provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is needless to say that the Cr.P.C. is complete in the matter of procedure relating to the service of summons or for that matter, the service of notice. There is no question of notice being served either through the process server or through registered post to a person who is required to appear before the Court in connection with any of the proceedings under the Cr.P.C., including the proceeding under S. 125, Cr.P.C. In fact, this aspect is fully covered by two decisions of this Court. In the decision in Revappa v. Gurusanthawwa reported in 1960 Mys LJ 125 : (1960 Cri LJ 1107) it is pointed out by this Court that according to Sections 68 to 74 (under the old code), Cr.P.C., every summons issued by a Criminal Court under the Cr.P.C., should be signed by the Presiding Officer and served by the police. It is further pointed out that the notice contemplated in S. 488(6) is the same thing as the summons provided in S. 68, Cr.P.C. It is therefore held in the said case that, the summons in a proceeding under S. 488 issued by the Head Munshi and served by the process server is illegal. It is further pointed out that the error or irregularity in the issue of summons is not cured by S. 537 of the old Code. This Court in the decision in Bhimappa Gangappa v. Indirabai reported in 1981 (1) KLJ 353 : (1981 Cri LJ (NOC) 8), has pointed out that service of notice of application under S. 125, Cr.P.C. by registered post is illegal, since under S. 67, Cr.P.C. it has to be served by a process server or the Officer of the Court. In view of these decisions, it is clear that the issue of notice by registered post is wholly unwarranted. Under these circumstances, the question as to whether the notice actually reached the instant petitioner or whether any presumption can be drawn with reference to S. 114 (illustrations) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that the notice has reached him, would not arise for consideration at all.