सं Samvidhan

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 70

Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present

Why this exists

Criminal procedure requires courts to be sure that people were actually informed about court proceedings against them (summons). But requiring the delivering police officer or process server to personally appear in court every time to confirm delivery is impractical, especially when service happens far away. This provision, carried forward from the old Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 68) with an added clause for electronic service, lets an affidavit substitute for live testimony and recognizes modern electronic delivery methods introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

How courts read it

Under the corresponding provision in the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure, courts generally treated such affidavits as raising a presumption of proper service, shifting the burden to the person disputing service to show it did not happen. Courts have been cautious to ensure the endorsement and affidavit comply with the manner prescribed (as in sections 64 and 66) before relying on them. No major judicial interpretation is yet available specifically for the new electronic-service clause introduced by the BNSS, as it is a recent addition.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: The person who delivered the summons must always appear in court to prove it was delivered.
    Fact: The law allows a sworn affidavit to replace their personal appearance as valid proof of service.
  • Myth: Electronic summons (like emails) aren't legally valid unless someone confirms receipt.
    Fact: Under sub-section (3), electronically sent summons are automatically considered duly served, with an attested copy as proof.