SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 389

V.G.ARUN
Anoop Jacob S/o Late T. M. Jacob – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Manoj P. Kunjachan.
For the Respondent: T.R. Renjith.

ORDER :

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:

    “62. Summons how served:

(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)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top