Due service of summons must be proved before inferring deliberate non-appearance; leave to appeal against acquittal was refused.

Leave to appeal against acquittal was refused because the prosecution did not establish due service of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 or deliberate avoidance by the respondent. Summons were sent on different dates, but there was no personal service and the investigating agency relied only on postal tracking reports without verifying actual delivery or the recipient. The respondent denied receipt and asserted hospitalization during the relevant period. On that material, the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and was justified in declining to infer intentional non-appearance from the postal record alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal should be granted on the ground that summons sent by speed post were duly served and the respondent deliberately avoided appearance before the investigating agency.

Analysis: The petition for leave to appeal arose from an acquittal and turned on whether the investigating agency had established due service of summons before alleging deliberate non-appearance. The record showed that summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were sent on different dates, but there was no personal service, and the prosecution relied only on tracking reports without ascertaining when or to whom delivery was made. No genuine attempt was made to effect personal service. The response also disclosed denial of receipt and a claim of hospitalization during the relevant period. In these circumstances, the Court found that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and was justified in declining to infer intentional avoidance from the postal tracking material alone.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal against acquittal was rightly refused; the petition was dismissed.

---