'Unaware Of Any Other Jurisprudence Where Summons Are Routed Through Postal Authorities': Gauhati HC On Practice Adopted In Arunachal Pradesh

The Bench of Justice N. Kotiswar Singha and Justice Manish Choudhury was perusing a report filed pursuant to its order in which it sought to know the steps taken so far in a POCSO case with reference to the recording of child' evidence as per Section 35(1) of the POCSO Act.

This particular section specifically provides that the evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of 30 days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence, in case of delay be recorded by the Special Court.

Further, Section 35 of the POCSO Act also states that trial in POCSO cases shall be completed within a period of 1 year.

The report

The report stated that the summons to the accused and witnesses was served through the post which takes at least a month and sometimes summons are not returned even in a month.

In the report, it has been mentioned that summons is sent to the prosecution witnesses and accused through the concerned Officer In-charge of the Police Station and in turn through the postal service.

It was also mentioned that the process servers of the court used to collect the summons and send these to the Officer In-charge of the police station of different districts through postal service and thereafter, the concerned Officer In-charge of the police station on receipt of the summons from the post office served the same to the witnesses or the accused as the case may be.

In the present case, the summons was issued to the prosecution witnesses through Officer In-charge of the Namsai Police Station via postal service on July 19, 2021, but the summons was not returned till the next date on 19.08.2021.

It was submitted that as there had been a similar delay on account of taking steps involving the postal authority, the postal authority, Tezu was asked to appear in person and send his report as to why the said summons to the prosecution witnesses are not received in time.

The postal department submitted that summons or articles sent from Tezu are sent via Tinsukia Railway Mail Service (RMS) because of which this delay occurs.

To this, the Court observed thus:

"We are unaware of any other jurisprudence where summons in criminal cases are routed through the postal authorities. Therefore, this is an aspect which will require further examination as to whether the present practice continued in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for utilizing the postal services for service of summons in criminal cases as well as civil cases should continue or any other more effective alternative method as adopted elsewhere should be adopted in the State of Arunachal Pradesh also, to prevent undue delay. The aforesaid exercise, however, will take some time as it would require necessary consultative process with all the relevant stake-holders and competent authorities."

The Court made it clear that in the case pending before Special Judge (POCSO), the Officer-in-charge of the concerned police station has to take responsibility for ensuring proper service of summons on the prosecution witnesses/court witnesses without involving the postal department.

The Court directed the Officer In-charge, Tezu to ensure service of summons to the prosecution witnesses so that the prosecution witnesses can appear before the Court on 05.10.2021.

The Court also made it clear that the Officer In-charge, Tezu will not only ensure proper service of summons but also the presence of the witnesses before the court, however, without arresting the witnesses unless so directed by the concerned Court.

Now, the matter has been listed for further hearing on October 7, 2021, by which date, the Additional Advocate General will have to apprise the Court as to the status of the case, more particularly, as to the presence of the witnesses as well as the accused for the smooth conduct of the trial.

Case title – XXX v. In Re - State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 4 Ors

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order