Chapter VI
Section 62 CrPC: Summons how served
New Law Update (2024)
Section 64 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Every summons shall be served by a police officer, or subject to such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf, by an officer of the Court issuing it or other public servant.
(2) The summons shall, if practicable, be served personally on the person summoned, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons.
(3) Every person on whom a summons is so served shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt therefor on the back of the other duplicate.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 62(2) – Personal Service Mandate
This sub-section mandates that a summons must primarily be served personally on the individual summoned, wherever feasible. It requires the serving officer to deliver or tender one of the duplicate copies of the summons directly to the person concerned, ensuring direct communication of the court’s directive.
Section 62(3) – Acknowledgment of Service
This crucial sub-section stipulates that the person receiving the summons must, if requested by the serving officer, sign a receipt on the back of the other duplicate copy. This signature serves as official proof of service, documenting that the summons has been duly received by the intended party and aiding in establishing proper procedure.
Landmark Judgements
S.P. Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1991 Cr.L.J. 1361 (All):
The Allahabad High Court emphasized that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 62 CrPC are mandatory provisions. It held that personal service on the summoned person, if practicable, and obtaining a signed receipt for such service are essential steps to ensure the validity and proof of summons delivery.
Samson v. State of Kerala, 1999 Cr.L.J. 4272 (Ker):
The Kerala High Court reiterated that Section 62(2) CrPC unequivocally mandates personal service of summons on the person summoned, where such service is practicable. The Court clarified that non-compliance with this primary mode of service could render the service irregular and potentially invalid, thereby affecting subsequent proceedings.