Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
7.10.2022 Srk vs Delhi on 7 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.32906 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
ORDER
No DATE Note
1. 07.10.2022 SRK, J
Notice before admission.
Heard.
The point for consideration before this
Court is whether the respondents have acted
within their powers in terms of territorial limits
while issuing notice under Section 160 CrPC.
Section 160 (1) CrPC reads thus:
"Police officer's power to require attendance
of witnesses:-
(1) Any police officer making an
investigation under this Chapter may, by
order in writing, require the attendance
before himself of any person being within
the limits of his own or any adjoining
station who, from the information given or
otherwise, appears to be acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of the case;
and such person shall attend as so
required:
Provided that no male person under the age
of fifteen years or above the age of sixty give
years or a woman or a mentally or
physically disabled person shall be required
to attend at any place other than the place
in which such male person or woman
resides."
The provision contemplates that police
officer making investigation may require
attendance of 'any person being within the
limits of his own or any adjoining station',
thereby, clearly and unequivocally setting limits
of the jurisdiction within which the police officer
is permitted to act. In Directorate of
Enforcement v. State of West Bengal {2021 SCC
OnLine Del 5603}, the Delhi High Court, while
referring to Section 160 CrPC, held thus:
"27. By a mere reading of the said provisions,
it becomes apparent that power of the Police
Officer to require attendance of a witness is
circumscribed by the words "within the limits
of his own or any adjoining station". It is to be
noted that if the said power was in the nature
of pan-India power, as has been sought to be
argued by the respondents, there was no
reason for the Legislature to use the
terminology quoted above. To the contrary, if
the same was the intention of the Legislature,
the Legislature would have clearly stated so
and bestowed unlimited jurisdiction on the
Police Officer by using terminology in the
nature of "anywhere in the country" or even
"anywhere within the State" The clear
departure of the Legislature and the use of the
terms "within the limits of his own or any
adjoining station" points towards a legislative
intention to limit the jurisdiction in this
regard. The reliance placed by the respondents
in this regard on the judgment in Anant
Brahmachari v. Union of India (supra), may
not further the case of the respondents as
clearly the said judgment was dealing with a
separate statutory setup in the nature of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 which
would have a strong bearing on the issue as
the said agency has jurisdiction across the
country. Further, this Court in Ravinder Singh
v. State W.P. (Crl.) No. 971/2010 vide order
dated 27.07.2010, has held as under:
"The Section does not need help of dictionaries
or other judgments for understanding its
meaning when there is no ambiguity and it is
so clearly written either within his own police
station or in the adjoining police station. I,
therefore, consider that summons issued to
the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in
Delhi, which is not adjoining police station of
Rewari is without jurisdiction and the notice
is, therefore, quashed."
28. I am, therefore, prima facie inclined to
agree with the dictum in Ravinder Singh
(supra). Therefore, on the issue of the
competence of the Respondents to issue the
impugned notices, a serious challenge has
been presented by the petitioners, which
prima facie, seems to have considerable merit.
It may also be noted that the said issue goes
to the root of the matter and if the
respondents lacks jurisdiction itself to issue
the impugned notices, the entire case of the
respondents falls."
The matter requires examination. In view
of the circumstances, there shall be interim
suspension of notice under Section 160 CrPC
dated 30.09.2022, for a period of four weeks.
Post on 27.10.2022.
In the mean while, learned Standing
Counsel for C.I.D. is permitted to file counter
affidavit.
________
SRK, J
DRK
