13. We shall now proceed to indicate the powers which the Magistrate could exercise and the steps he could take under the Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of securing the presence of witnesses. Section 62 Cr. P. C., reads as follows:

“(1) Every summons shall be served by a police officer or subject to such rules as the State Government may make in this behalf, by an officer of the court issuing it or other public servant”.
Section 64 states “where the person summoned cannot by the exercise of due diligence be found, the summons may be served by leaving one of the duplicates for him with some adult male member of his family residing with him and the person with whom the summons is so left shall if so required by the serving officer sign a receipt therefore on the back of the other duplicate”.

Section 65 Cr. P. C., states –

“If service cannot by the exercise of due diligence be effected as provided in Section 62, Section 63 or Section 64, the serving officer shall affix one of the duplicates of the summons to some conspicuous part of the house of homestead in which the person summoned ordinarily resides and thereupon the court after making such enquiries as it thinks fit may either declare that the summons has been duly served or order fresh service in such manner as it considers proper”.

Section 69, which makes provision for service of summons on witnesses by post reads as follows: –

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections of this Chapter, a court issuing a summons to a witness may in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of fresh summons direct a copy of the summons to be served by registered post addressed to the witness at the place where he ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
(2) Where an acknowledgment purporting to be signed by the witness or an endorsement purporting to be made by a postal employee that the witness refused to take delivery of the summons has been received the court issuing the summons may declare that the summons has been duly served”.

This provision [section 62] is a new one incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 and was not in the old Criminal Procedure Code. This provision, in our experience, has not been resorted to by any Magistrate as far as we know. Of course, it is not practicable to adopt this procedure in every case, for it would result in heavy expenditure to the State. Nevertheless, where summons issued has not been served on the witness by a police officer under Section 62, repeatedly, the Magistrate may resort to this provision of issuing the summons and sending it by registered post to the witness. Of course, if after due service, the witness does not appear before the Court, the Court should issue coercive processes for securing the presence of the witness before the court. In suitable cases, or in cases of chronic or persistent failure to appear in response to the summons, a complaint can be laid under Section 174 I. P. C. Then again, the explanation (2) in Section 309 Cr. P. C., also can be made use of in suitable cases by the Magistrate, for that explanation states ‘the terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include in appropriate cases the payment of costs by the prosecution or accused’. We might also note here that no rules have been framed by the State Government under Section 62 Cr. P. C. Therefore, as it is, there appears to us to be no bar to the serving of summons by an officer of the court or other public servant.