Under Section 62 Cr.P.C. a summon is issued by a competent court. A accepts the summon, but refuses to sign on the back of the duplicate. What offence A has committed?

The Procedural Backdrop: Section 62 Cr.P.C. and Its BNS Equivalent

Under Section 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — now corresponding to Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — when a summons is served upon a person, the serving officer is required to obtain the signature of the person served on the back of the duplicate copy as an acknowledgment of service. This signature is not a formality. It is the formal and legally recognised mode of proof of service — the documentary record by which the court may satisfy itself that the process was properly completed and received. Without this acknowledgment, the officer cannot certify service in the manner the law requires. The duplicate returned to the court becomes an incomplete document.

The question, therefore, is not whether A has obstructed the service — he has accepted the summons. The question is what offence, if any, is committed when a person accepts the summons in hand but refuses to acknowledge that receipt by signing the duplicate.

The Clear Legal Position: No Offence Under Section 173 IPC / Section 207 BNS

The first instinct would be to charge A under Section 173 IPC — the provision dealing with preventing service of summons. The section punishes whoever intentionally prevents the serving of a summons. "Refusal to sign a summons, refusal to receive a summons, and throwing down a summons after service, do not constitute the offence of intentionally preventing the service of summons." The reasoning is sound — where the summons has been tendered and received, service is, in legal terms, already complete. Tendering the summons constitutes valid service. Therefore, a person who accepts the summons but refuses to sign the duplicate has not prevented its service in any legal sense.

Section 207 BNS — the corresponding provision under the new code — preserves this position without change. A person who accepts a summons but refuses to sign acknowledgment on the duplicate is therefore not liable under this section. His refusal is not a prevention of service; it is something distinct.

The True Situation: No Penal Provision Is Attracted

This is where the analysis acquires considerable nuance. The law, with all its elaborate provisions dealing with contempt of public servants' authority under Chapter XIII of the IPC (now Chapter XIII of the BNS), does not specifically create a penal offence for the refusal to sign the duplicate of an accepted summons. The reason for this becomes clear when one examines the legislative design.

Section 172 IPC / Section 206 BNS punishes absconding to avoid service. A has not absconded. Section 173 IPC / Section 207 BNS punishes preventing service. Service has been completed. Section 174 IPC / Section 208 BNS punishes non-attendance in obedience to the summons. A has accepted the summons and may appear; non-attendance would only arise later if he disobeys the direction to appear.

The act of signing the duplicate is not the equivalent of compliance with the summons. The summons is a direction to attend — it is not a direction to sign. Signing the duplicate is merely the procedure of acknowledging service, not the substance of the court's direction. Since A has accepted the summons, service is complete in law. The court, through the serving officer, may certify under Section 64 BNSS (corresponding to Section 62 Cr.P.C.) that the summons was tendered and service was completed, even without the signature, by noting that the person refused to sign. The refusal to sign does not undo what has been done.

The Bombay High Court touched the heart of this principle in Reg. v. Kalya Fakir (1868, 5 BHC Cr. C. 34), where it was held that refusal to sign a summons does not attract any penal provision. The Madras High Court reached the same conclusion in Queen v. Purnamalai (1882, 5 Mad. 199), holding that refusal to receive a summons does not attract Section 173 IPC since tender is sufficient service — and if tender itself completes service, the signature of acknowledgment is not an essential ingredient of service at all.

What Happens in Practice: The Officer's Duty

The procedural remedy for A's refusal is administrative, not penal. The serving officer, on being refused the signature, must endorse the duplicate with a note that the summons was duly served and that the person refused to sign the acknowledgment. This endorsement, under the procedural codes, serves as sufficient proof of service. The court then proceeds on the basis that the summons has been duly served. If A subsequently fails to appear in obedience to the summons, he then becomes liable under Section 174 IPC / Section 208 BNS — the offence of non-attendance in obedience to a summons issued by a public servant legally competent to do so.

Under Section 208 BNS (corresponding to Section 174 IPC), whoever being legally bound to attend in person or by agent, in obedience to a summons from a competent public servant, intentionally omits to attend at the specified place and time, commits an offence. The punishment under Section 208(a) BNS is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. Under Section 208(b) BNS, where the summons is to attend before a court, the punishment extends to six months and a fine up to ten thousand rupees, or both. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable, and triable by any Magistrate.

A Conceptual Illustration

The illustration appended to Section 208 BNS itself illuminates the point elegantly:

A, being legally bound to appear before a High Court in obedience to a subpoena issuing from that Court, intentionally omits to appear. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

The offence is non-appearance — not the refusal to sign. The signature on the duplicate is only the evidence that the summons was received. It is not itself the obligation that the law enforces.

Summary of the Legal Position

The situation presents what might be described as a gap in the penal law, which the legislature has consciously left unfilled, because the procedural mechanism itself takes care of the problem. A's refusal to sign does not vitiate the service; it merely makes proof slightly more cumbersome. The consequences flow in this manner:

• A refuses to sign the duplicate — no penal offence is committed at this stage.

• The serving officer endorses the duplicate noting refusal to sign — service is deemed complete.

• If A thereafter fails to appear before the court on the date specified — he commits an offence under Section 174 IPC / Section 208 BNS, punishable with imprisonment up to six months if the summons was to attend before a court, and up to one month in other cases.

The law is thus logical in its architecture. It does not punish a person for a refusal to sign a piece of paper; it punishes him if he treats the court's direction with such disregard that he does not appear at all. The signature is the procedural mechanism for proving service — and when it is refused, the law provides its own alternative. What the law does not do — and correctly so — is create a separate criminal liability merely for the refusal to put pen to paper. A student who understands this distinction has grasped something important: not every act of non-cooperation with state process constitutes a criminal offence; the law penalises only that non-cooperation which strikes at the substance of the court's authority.