Nagpur: In a ruling clarifying the legal status of electronic communication in criminal proceedings, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court last week held that summons through a mobile phone is legally valid under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and set aside an order imposing costs on a cop for effecting such service.Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke quashed a January 21 order of the special Pocso court in Nagpur, which directed recovery of costs from Constable Santosh Ramteke on the ground that summons served through a mobile phone was “not allowed”.The Maharashtra govt, represented by senior counsel and govt pleader Deven Chauhan along with assistant public prosecutor A M Kadukar, challenged the trial court’s order by filing a criminal application. The plea was moved on behalf of the Lakadganj police station.The special Pocso court noted two prosecution witnesses were absent and summons was served via mobile phone, resulting in delay in recording evidence in a pending special case. It consequently imposed costs on the constable for not serving summons through a “legal mode”.Before the high court, the state argued that the trial court overlooked Sections 70 and 530 of BNSS. Section 70(3) provides “all summons served through electronic communication, while Section 530 permits trials, inquiries and proceedings, including service of summons, to be conducted in electronic mode.After examining the record, Justice Joshi-Phalke observed “there is amended provision in view of Section 70 of BNSS”, and that electronic service is “very well accepted by the amendment”. The court added that the purpose of service is to put a person on notice and that “the mode is surely irrelevant”.The bench also found factual errors in the trial court’s reasoning, recording the witnesses were initially served on November 3, 2025, and reissued summons was not handed over to the concerned constable for service. Setting aside the order in the special case, the court directed recovery of costs from the officer stands quashed. Key takeaways from HC orderCourt relied on Section 70(3), which states summons served electronically “shall be considered as duly served”Section 530 of BNSS permits trials, inquiries and proceedings to be conducted in electronic mode, including service of summonsJudge held the purpose of service is to ensure notice, observing that “the mode is surely irrelevant”.The order imposing costs on the constable was quashed.The ruling reinforces statutory recognition of digital processes in criminal justice administration
