ANOOP JACOB Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C.No.134 of 2021 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Court for Cases related to MPs/MLAs), Ernakulam. The offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 269, 271 and 188 of IPC, Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act and Sections 4(2)(a), 4(2)(e) and 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Disease Ordinance, 2020. The Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner. The specific case put forth by the petitioner is that the summons, alleged to have been sent through WhatsApp to his mobile phone, had never reached him, as he has not downloaded the WhatsApp application on his phone.

(2.) In view of the contentions, it may be apposite to have a look at Section 62 of Cr.P.C, dealing with mode of service of summons;

(3.) Going by Section 65 of Cr.P.C, if service could not be effected as provided under Section 62, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to the conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides. Thereafter, the court should make such enquiries as it thinks fit and either declare the summons to have been duly served or order fresh service in such manner as it considers proper. As per Rule 7 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, summons issued to the accused and witnesses shall ordinarily be signed by the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court and the words "By order of the Court " shall invariably be prefixed to the signature of the Ministerial Officer.