सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 66

Service when persons summoned cannot be found

Why this exists

Court processes need a reliable way to notify people even when they are temporarily away, avoiding, or simply hard to locate. Rather than letting cases stall indefinitely, the law allows service through a responsible adult family member, provided the officer has genuinely tried to find the person first. This balances the practical need for timely justice with fairness to the summoned individual, who should still realistically receive the notice through someone close to them.

How courts read it

Courts have consistently held that 'due diligence' must be shown before substituted service is valid — a serving officer cannot simply claim the person was 'not found' without real effort. Judgments under the predecessor provision (Section 64 of the CrPC, 1973) emphasized that service on a family member is only valid if that person actually resides with the summoned individual, and that a casual visitor or servant does not qualify. Courts have quashed proceedings where service was shown to be a mere formality without genuine attempts to locate the accused.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Leaving the summons with any adult in the house, like a servant or guest, counts as valid service.
    Fact: The law specifically excludes servants, and courts require the person to be an actual family member residing with the summoned individual.
  • Myth: The officer can use this method immediately without trying to find the person first.
    Fact: This method is only valid after 'due diligence' — genuine, reasonable efforts to locate the person have failed.