Mukta Gupta, J.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to the orders of the learned Special Judge, CBI Court, Patiala House dated 15th December, 2011 and 19th December, 2011 whereby the learned Special Judge held that the purported service of summons upon the Petitioner was valid in law and consequently vide its order dated 19th December, 2011 observed that the Petitioner is deliberately avoiding appearance before the Trial Court and thus legal consequences would follow.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that initially summons were issued to the Indian Embassy at Berne, Switzerland which on 9th June, 2011 by its covering letter sent the same to the Petitioner by registered A.D. The Petitioner challenged this process and in this regard made communications to the Swiss authorities, who in turn communicated the same to the Indian Embassy on 7th July, 2011. It is contended that the order passed by the learned Trial Court issuing summons, which were served to the Petitioner by registered A.D. through Indian Embassy at Berne, were not compliant to the International treaties or even the domestic law. The Petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court on 14th July, 2011 challenging the delivery of summons dated 23rd May, 2011 placing on record the factum of the purported and illegal service together with the letter dated 7th July, 2011 issued by Federal Office of Justice (in short ‘FOJ’) to the Indian Embassy at Berne, Switzerland. Thus, the learned Special Judge upon hearing the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 vide its order dated 5th August, 2011 was pleased to allow the application, issued fresh summons returnable on 4th November, 2011 and directed effecting of service of fresh summons in compliance with the provisions of MOU/Exchange of letters dated 20th February, 1989 between the two Countries.

3. On an application filed by the CBI seeking extension of time, the date fixed for service of summons on the Petitioner was extended to 14th December, 2011. Thereafter a request made by the Indian Embassy at Berne to the FOJ in Switzerland seeking legal assistance along with the fresh summons dated 3rd September, 2011 in original issued by the learned Special Judge and other translated copies was delivered at the office of the Petitioner in Switzerland. The Petitioner thus consulted his Attorneys and on behalf of the Petitioner a letter dated 9th December, 2011 was addressed to the FOJ, Districts Attorney’s office in Biel/Bienne, Switzerland and the General Attorney of Canton of Berne raising issues challenging the validity of the service of summons dated 3rd September, 2011. Vide letter dated 13th December, 2011 the FOJ replied to the Swiss Attorneys of the Petitioner and sought time to review the issues mentioned in the letter of the Petitioner. On 14th December, 2011 i.e. the date mentioned in the fresh summons dated 3rd September, 2011 for the appearance of the Petitioner, counsel for the Petitioner filed an application before the learned Special Judge placing on record the factum of invalid/improper and illegal service. Respondent No.1 also filed an application on the same date placing on record the communication received from the Indian Embassy, Berne along with information from the Swiss authorities.

4. The objections of the Petitioner to the said service and proof of service are that in the eyes of law, no service has been effected on the Petitioner as the letter of the Swiss authorities itself state that a notification has been issued, without stating that the same has been delivered. Further, the service of summons on accused persons between India and Switzerland is not covered by the MOU/Exchange of letters dated 20th February, 1989. The assistance agreed to between the two Countries by the said MOU/Exchange of letters in criminal matters relates to the purpose of investigation alone. Further, the request for assistance was not made to the competent authority and the necessary translations as