Recently, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati addressed an important question regarding the investigative powers conferred by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The case concerned a writ petition filed by V D Moorthy, a senior citizen and director of a company based in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. He challenged repeated notices issued by the Andhra Pradesh CID that required his personal attendance at Vijayawada in connection with a criminal investigation, despite his age, health, and residence outside the jurisdiction.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from proceedings initiated at the CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”). Although Moorthy was not named as an accused, he was served with multiple notices requiring his appearance before the Investigating Officer in Vijayawada. He complied with such summons on two occasions; however, repeated requisitions continued to be issued even though he resided in Noida and had been medically advised against travel due to serious health conditions. Aggrieved, Moorthy approached the Court, contending that the repeated demands infringed upon his constitutional rights as well as statutory protections guaranteed under the BNSS.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Moorthy had already attended the proceedings at Vijayawada as per earlier notices. They emphasised the fact that he was over 65 years old, suffering from cervical radiculopathy, and undergoing treatment that strictly limited travel and prolonged sitting. The petitioner maintained that the law entitled persons of his category to be examined at their residence or a neutral site in Noida, under the supervision of his advocate and through audio-video recording, as provided under Section 180 BNSS. It was argued that continuous requisitions violated his rights and the prescribed legal procedure.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents, represented by senior counsel, contended that Moorthy’s age stated in the petition was inaccurate according to medical records, claiming he was only 64 years old. They argued that Section 179(1) BNSS allowed the investigating officer to summon witnesses beyond local jurisdiction and, if a witness expressed unwillingness, the officer could adopt alternative means of recording testimony. The respondents justified the notices, stating that Moorthy’s attendance was essential for the investigation, but that provisions existed for accommodating unwilling persons within the framework of the law.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that while Section 179(1) of BNSS empowers a police officer to require the attendance of certain persons for investigation, this power is not absolute and carries important exceptions. The court explained that “the Police Officer can issue an order in writing... but he cannot secure their presence before him as a matter of right.” This means that persons falling under certain protected categories, such as males over 60 years, women, and those with physical or mental disabilities, are not legally obliged to physically appear if summoned. It was noted, “Such persons have no legal obligation to appear before him in obedience to the notice... The object of this proviso appears to be, such persons, being vulnerable, cannot be troubled by the Police Officer in the name of investigation.”
Further, the court clarified the territorial limits of police jurisdiction, stating that Section 179(1) limits the power to summon persons only “within the limit of his own Police Station or any adjoining station.” The police officer cannot issue a notice to persons residing far away beyond these limits. On the petitioner’s age issue, the court gave importance to the Aadhaar card as proof and held that the petitioner was indeed above 65 years, rejecting the contention based on medical records. Finally, the Court recognised the use of technology in investigations by stating that “the Police Officer, the Police Officer, on his own or on the request of such person, whose statement he intends to record, may also record such statement in electronic means,” emphasising the option of recording evidence without compelling physical attendance.
The decision of the Court:
The Court held that the repeated notices served upon the petitioner were without jurisdiction. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, thereby affirming that investigative powers under the BNSS are subject to constitutional and procedural safeguards, particularly in protecting senior citizens and witnesses residing outside the territorial limits of the investigating agency.
Case Title: V D Moorthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 22577 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. T. Nagarjuna Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Posani Venkateswarlu, APP for CID Sai Rohit
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
