As per Section 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the summons should be served personally on the person summoned, and every person on whom the summons is served shall, if so required by the serving officer, sign a receipt on the back of the other duplicate.

In this case, since the summons was served personally by a police officer, it is presumed to be validly served. However, since Rahul has refused to sign the acknowledgment receipt, the police officer may have to produce other evidence to prove the service of summons. The police officer can also testify in court regarding the manner in which he served the summons and that Rahul had refused to sign the receipt.

If Rahul intentionally prevented the service of summons or intentionally disobeyed the summons, he may be punishable under Section 173 and Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively. However, to establish such an offense, it must be proved that the summons had been issued and duly served upon Rahul as prescribed in Chapter 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As per Section 67 of the CrPC, when a court desires that a summons issued by it shall be served at any place outside its local jurisdiction, it shall ordinarily send such summons in duplicate to a Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the person summoned resides or is to be served.

In the given situation, the Delhi court will send the summons in duplicate to a Magistrate in Mumbai, where the witness resides or is to be served. The Magistrate in Mumbai will then proceed to serve the summons to the witness in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC. The Magistrate shall serve the summons personally or through a process server and prepare a report of service, which shall be sent to the Delhi court.

As per section 78 of CrPC, when a warrant is to be executed outside the local jurisdiction of the court issuing it, the court may forward it by post or otherwise to any Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed. In this case, the court in City A can forward the warrant to an Executive Magistrate, District Superintendent of Police, or Commissioner of Police in City B.

The Executive Magistrate or the police officer shall endorse their name on the warrant, and if practicable, cause it to be executed in the manner provided by the law. The Court issuing the warrant shall also forward the substance of the information against the person to be arrested along with the warrant, together with any documents that may be sufficient to enable the court acting under section 81 to decide whether bail should or should not be granted to the person.

Therefore, in this case, the court in City A can forward the warrant to an Executive Magistrate, District Superintendent of Police, or Commissioner of Police in City B with the required documents, and they will execute the warrant as per the law.

As per Section 81(1) of the CrPC, the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police in Delhi, after verifying that the arrested person is the one intended by the Court which issued the warrant, shall direct his removal in custody to the Court in Mumbai which issued the warrant. However, in this case, due to lack of funds, the Delhi police cannot send any personnel with Mr. X to Mumbai. Therefore, they should follow the provisions of Section 78(1) of the CrPC, which states that the Court issuing the warrant may forward it by post or otherwise to the Executive Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is to be executed. In this case, the Court in Mumbai can direct any police officer or authority to receive Mr. X in custody and produce him before the Court. The Delhi police should forward the warrant, along with the substance of the information against Mr. X and other relevant documents, to the authorities in Mumbai, as required under Section 78(2) of the CrPC. Upon receipt of the warrant, the authorities in Mumbai shall execute it in the manner provided under the CrPC.

he court will publish the proclamation requiring John to appear at a specified place and time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. The proclamation will be published by publicly reading it in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which John ordinarily resides. It will also be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which John ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village. A copy of the proclamation will be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The court may also direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which John ordinarily resides, if it thinks fit.

If John fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, he will be considered a proclaimed offender, and the court may make a declaration to that effect as per sub-section (4) of Section 82. The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).

According to Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, if John fails to appear at the specified place and time as required by the proclamation published under Section 82, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. If a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of Section 82 pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, it is essential for John to appear at the specified place and time as required by the proclamation to avoid legal consequences.

Yes, if the court is satisfied that Mr. Gupta is about to dispose of his property or remove it from the local jurisdiction of the court, then the court can order the attachment of his property simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation under Section 82, as provided in the proviso to Section 83(1) of the CrPC. However, the court must record the reasons for doing so in writing. The court can authorize the attachment of any property belonging to Mr. Gupta within the district in which it is made, and it can also authorize the attachment of any property belonging to Mr. Gupta outside the district, with the endorsement of the District Magistrate in whose district such property is situated. The court can order the attachment of movable or immovable property, and the method of attachment can include seizure, appointment of a receiver, or an order prohibiting the delivery of such property to Mr. Gupta or anyone on his behalf. If the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment can be made by taking possession, appointment of a receiver, or an order prohibiting the payment of rent on delivery of the property to Mr. Gupta or anyone on his behalf. If the property ordered to be attached consists of live-stock or is of a perishable nature, the court may order immediate sale thereof, and the proceeds of the sale shall abide by the order of the court.

Yes, the court can order the attachment of Mr. X’s property under section 83 of the CrPC. If the court is satisfied that Mr. X is about to dispose of or remove any of his property from the local jurisdiction of the court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation. The order shall authorize the attachment of any property belonging to Mr. X within the district in which it is made and shall authorize the attachment of any property belonging to Mr. X outside the district with the endorsement of the District Magistrate within whose district such property is situate.

If the property ordered to be attached is movable property, the attachment can be made by seizure, appointment of a receiver, or by an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to Mr. X or anyone on his behalf. The court can choose to use any two or all of these methods.

If the property ordered to be attached is immovable property, the attachment can be made by taking possession, appointment of a receiver, or by an order in writing prohibiting the payment of rent on delivery of property to Mr. X or anyone on his behalf. The court can choose to use any two or all of these methods.

If the property ordered to be attached consists of live-stock or is of a perishable nature, the court may order immediate sale thereof, and in such case, the proceeds of the sale shall abide the order of the court.

Mr. B can prefer a claim or make an objection to the attachment of the property under Section 84(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He must do so within six months from the date of attachment. The claim or objection will be inquired into by the court in which it is preferred or made under Section 84(3). If the claim or objection is disallowed in whole or in part by an order under Section 84(1), Mr. B can institute a suit to establish his right in respect of the property in dispute within one year from the date of the order under Section 84(4). However, the order shall be conclusive subject to the result of such suit, if any.

As per Section 85(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, if a person whose property is or has been at the disposal of the State Government appears voluntarily or is apprehended and brought before the Court within two years from the date of attachment and proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he did not abscond or conceal himself for the purpose of avoiding execution of the warrant and that he had not received the proclamation notice in time to attend within the specified time, the property, or the net proceeds of the sale, or the residue of the property, shall be delivered to him after satisfying all costs incurred in consequence of the attachment.

Therefore, John can claim his property back after two years of it being at the disposal of the State Government, as long as he satisfies the conditions mentioned in Section 85(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. If there is any refusal to deliver the property or the proceeds of the sale thereof, John can appeal to the Court as per Section 86 of the Code.