State vs . Sukender @ Parvesh on 4 February, 2020
5. The Process Server HC Kapil Dev was examined as
PW1. He was duly cross examined. Although, there are minor
discrepancies in his evidence such as that he had not taken any
photograph of the affixation nor made any arrival entry however, I
have no reason to doubt his otherwise consistent stand and
testimony. Accused has not been able to show that the report made
by Process Server is, in any manner, manipulated. Of course, there
FIR No. 46/19
State Vs. Sukender @ Parvesh 3/4
is always a presumption attached to official acts performed by a
Government Servant and the burden lies on the person who pleads
otherwise to show that the procedure prescribed was not followed.
That, however, has not come out in the cross examination of the
said witness. The main defence of the accused is that he was not
resident of the address on which proclamation is made. However,
he failed to tell the court regarding his address at the time when
proclamation was made.