GURUSAWMI ALAMBIRAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACT III of 18G9,Section 3, requires personal service, but does not say what amounts to personal service. In this case, the Petitioner refused to accept service, and the Village Munsif went away and reported the refusal. In Kuppan, In re 11 M. 137, there was no refusal to accept service, but no copy of the summons was left with the accused, who afterwards excused his failure to appear on the ground that he had forgotten the date. In that case, the learned Judges held that there had not been a good service under the ACT, because a copy had not been left with the accused. In this case, it is true the accused refused to accept service, but the summons was in duplicate and one of them might have been thrown down in his presence to avail himself of it afterwards if he chose. There is not sufficient to distinguish the case from Kuppan In re 11 M. 137. I set aside the con-conviction against the accused and order the fine, if paid, to be refunded.