Section 67

This provision exists to stop legal proceedings from stalling just because a person cannot be physically found or refuses to accept a summons. Indian procedural law has long recognized that requiring only in-hand delivery would let evasive parties defeat justice. So it allows 'substituted service' — pasting the summons visibly on the person's residence — as a fallback, but only after real effort has failed, and only with the court's oversight to prevent misuse.

Courts have consistently held that 'due diligence' is a factual threshold that must be genuinely satisfied before resorting to affixing the summons — mere token attempts are insufficient. Judgments under the identical predecessor provision (Section 106 CrPC, and earlier Section 84) emphasized that affixation is an exception, not a routine shortcut, and that the court must independently apply its mind before declaring service valid, rather than accepting the serving officer's report mechanically.

• Myth: Officers can immediately paste the summons on a door if the person isn't home the first time.
  Fact: The law requires genuine 'due diligence' — real, repeated attempts to serve the person or their representative — before resorting to affixing the summons.
• Myth: Once the summons is pasted, it's automatically valid.
  Fact: The court must independently inquire and decide whether to treat it as duly served or order fresh service.