Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 October, 2022

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH R0Y

             Writ Petition Nos.32906 and 33022 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:


      In these two Writ Petitions the petitioners challenge the legal

validity of the notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to them to

appear before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.12 of 2021 of

CID Police Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh, for the purpose

of investigation in the said crime.


2)    As the impugned notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were

issued to the petitioners in the same crime i.e. Crime No.12 of

2021 of CID Police Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh, both

the Writ Petitions were heard together and they are being disposed

of by this common order.


3)    Factual matrix of both the Writ Petitions lie in a narrow

compass and may be stated as follows:

      a) A case in Crime No.12 of 2021 was suo moto registered by

the Crime Investigation Department Police Station of the State of

Andhra Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 124-

A, 153-A, 505 r/w.120-B of IPC.          It was registered against

Sri   Kanumuru     Raghu    Rama      Krishnam   Raju,   Member    of

Parliament of Narasapuram Lok Sabha Constituency of West
                                        2

                                                                                CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

Godavari District and ABN News Channel and TV5 News Channel.

The said crime is now under investigation. Whileso, accused No.1

Sri Kanumuru Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju has filed a Writ

Petition in this Court seeking quash of the said F.I.R. and sought

for stay of investigation. This court ordered that the investigation

shall go on. However, for the reasons stated in the said order,

directed that if at all the Investigating Officer requires the

presence of accused No.1 for interrogation or examination in

connection with the said case that he shall be examined in

Dilkusha Guest House in Hyderabad. Similarly, accused Nos.2

and 3 viz., ABN and TV5 news channels approached the Hon'ble

Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India being

aggrieved by the registration of the said crime against the said two

T.V. news channels. The Apex Court ordered not to take any

coercive steps against the said two TV news channels and their

personnel. Thus, there is no order passed staying the

investigation in any of the proceedings initiated by the three

accused in the said crime. Therefore, the investigation is going

on.

(b) Whileso, during the course of investigation, the

Investigating Officer issued the impugned notices under Section

160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners in these two writ petitions, who are

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

the employees of the said two TV news channels i.e. ABN and TV5

news channels, directing them to appear before the Investigating

Officer for the purpose of investigation in the said crime.

impugned notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. on the ground

that the Police Officer is authorized or empowered under Section

160 Cr.P.C. to summon a person only when the said person is

residing within the territorial limits of the police station of the said

officer or residing within the territorial limits of any adjoining

station as per the language employed in Section 160 Cr.P.C. and

he is not empowered to summon a person who is residing beyond

the limits of his police station or the adjoining station. It is their

specific version that the crime was registered by the CID police of

the State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioners have been

residing in Hyderabad in the State of Telangana and as such, they

are not residing within the limits of the C.I.D. Police Station of the

State of Andhra Pradesh or within the limits of the adjoining

station. Therefore, they seek to impeach the notices issued by the

CID Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that they

have no jurisdiction or competence to issue any such notices

under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, who are residing

beyond the territorial limits of the said Police Station or the

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

adjoining station and thereby prayed to declare the impugned

notices as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently,

prayed to set aside the said notices issued under Section 160

Cr.P.C.

4) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.32906 of

2022 Sri Umesh Chandra PVG; learned senior counsel appearing

for the petitioner in W.P.No.33022 of 2022 Sri Posani

Venkateswarlu; and learned Advocate-General appearing for the

respondents.

5) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in

W.P.No.33022 of 2022 Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, and learned

counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.32906 of 2022 Sri Umesh

Chandra PVG, would contend that the language employed in

Section 160 Cr.P.C. clearly mandates that the police officer is

empowered to summon only a person who is residing within the

limits of his police station or the adjoining station, which clearly

indicates that he is not empowered or competent to summon a

person who is residing beyond the limits of his police station or

the limits of the adjoining station. They would submit that,

admittedly, the petitioners are residing in Hyderabad in the State

of Telangana and they are not residing within the limits of CID

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

Police Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh or within the limits

of the adjoining station. Therefore, they would contend that the

impugned notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. are not valid

and the Investigating Officer is not competent to issue any such

notices to the petitioners.

6) Per contra, learned Advocate-General appearing for the

respondents would contend that Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. defines

"police station" which means any post or place declared generally

or specially by the State Government to be a police station, and

includes any local area specified by the State Government. He

would submit that in terms of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., notification

in G.O.Ms.No.478, Home (Pol.D) Department, dated 13.08.1986

was issued long back in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh

declaring the office of the Crime Investigation Department as a

Police Station for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh. He would

further submit that after the State was bifurcated with effect from

02.06.2014 into two States of State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh, again two separate notifications were issued in

terms of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. declaring the offices of Crime

Investigation Department of both the States respectively as Police

Stations for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and for the entire

State of Telangana. He has also placed on record the said two

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

separate notifications issued by the two States i.e. G.O.Ms.No.129,

dated 02.08.2017 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh

and G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 07.08.2014 issued by the Government of

Telangana. Therefore, in view of the said two notifications issued

under the aforesaid two G.Os., by the Governments of the two

States, learned Advocate-General would vehemently contend that

the office of the Crime Investigation Department in the State of

Andhra Pradesh is itself declared as a Police Station for the entire

State of Andhra Pradesh and similarly, the office of the Crime

Investigation Department in the State of Telangana is itself

declared as a Police Station for the entire State of Telangana.

Therefore, he would vehemently contend that when Crime

Investigation Department is a police station for the entire State of

Andhra Pradesh, exercising jurisdiction over the territorial limits

of entire State of Andhra Pradesh, the Crime Investigation

Department Police Station of the State of Telangana, which is a

police station for the entire State of Telangana, exercising

jurisdiction over the entire State, would be the adjoining station

for the Crime Investigation Department Police Station of Andhra

Pradesh State. So, he would submit that it is within the

competence of the Investigating Officer of CID Police Station of the

State of Andhra Pradesh, to issue notice under Section 160

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, who are residing within the limits of the

adjoining station in Hyderabad of Telangana State. Therefore, he

would submit that the impugned notices are perfectly valid under

law and they cannot be termed as illegal and without jurisdiction

as has been contended by the petitioners. He would pray for

dismissal of both the Writ Petitions.

7) The material facts of the lis are absolutely not in

controversy. Admittedly, the petitioners, being the employees of

the said two TV News Channels i.e. ABN and TV5, whose head

offices are situate in Hyderabad of Telangana State, have been

residing in Hyderabad in the State of Telangana. There is

absolutely no dispute regarding the said material fact. Similarly,

the crime was registered by the CID Police Station of the State of

Andhra Pradesh. By the impugned notices issued under Section

160 Cr.P.C., the Investigating Officer directed the petitioners, who

are residing in Hyderabad, in the Telangana State, to appear

before him in the Regional Office of CID of Andhra Pradesh for the

purpose of their examination alleging that they are acquainted

with the facts of the said case and their examination is essential

in the process of investigating the said crime.

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

8) As noticed supra, the legal validity of the impugned notices

issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners is assailed

mainly on the ground that as the petitioners are not residing

within the limits of the Crime Investigation Department Police

Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh or within the limits of its

adjoining station, that the Investigating Officer has no jurisdiction

or competence to issue the said notices and they are not valid

under law. It is not the case of the prosecution also that the

petitioners are residing within the limits of CID Police Station of

the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, it is the case of the

prosecution that the petitioners are residing within the limits of

the adjoining station of CID Police Station of the State of Andhra

Pradesh. Therefore, it is the case of the prosecution that the

impugned notices are legally valid and sustainable.

9) In order to appreciate the said contentions raised by both

the parties, it is expedient to go through Section 160 Cr.P.C.,

which reads as under:

"160. Police officer's power to require attendane 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:

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five 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.

(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence."

10) A reading of clause (1) of Section 160 Cr.P.C. makes it

manifest that any police officer, making an investigation by order

in writing, require the attendance of any person before him, who is

within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining station

and who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the

case and such person shall attend before him as required by the

said police officer. So, the power of the police officer to summon a

person to appear before him for the purpose of investigation in

connection with a crime registered is circumscribed by restricting

his power only to summon a person who is residing within the

limits of his police station or residing within the limits of the

adjoining station. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 160 Cr.P.C.

prohibits summoning a male person under the age of 15 years or

above the age of 65 years and a woman of any age or mentally or

physically disabled person. The said proviso is not applicable to

the present facts of the case. It is not the case of the petitioners

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

that they are under the age of 15 years or above the age of 65

years being male persons or that they are mentally or physically

disabled persons. Therefore, the prohibition contained in the

proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 160 Cr.P.C. is not relevant to

consider in the present case.

11) Now the crucial question for determination is, whether the

petitioners, who are residing in Hyderabad in the State of

Telangana would come within the ambit of the phrase "being

within the limits of adjoining station" or not?

12) The petitioners contend that the CID Police Station in the

State of Telangana cannot be construed as an adjoining station,

whereas, the prosecution contends that in view of the notifications

issued by both the Governments of State of Andhra Pradesh and

the State of Telangana, under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., the

petitioners come within the purview of residents of adjoining

station.

13) Therefore, the entire issue involved in these two Writ

Petitions now revolves around the interpretation to be given to the

term, expression or the words 'adjoining station' as envisaged in

Section 160(1) Cr.P.C.

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

14) Before embarking upon an enquiry on the said issue, at the

outset, it is relevant to note that the crime was not registered by

any regular law and order police station in the State of Andhra

Pradesh, which would have its own delimitations within the State

relating to the territorial limits of the said law and order police

station functioning in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Separate

notifications would be given to each and every law and order

police station functioning within the State of Andhra Pradesh

fixing the territorial limits of the said police stations within which

they have to function. So, when any crime is registered in the said

local police stations, the Investigating Officer concerned is only

empowered to issue notice to any person under Section 160(1)

Cr.P.C. summoning him for examination as a witness only when

he is residing within the territorial limits of his police station or

within the limits of his adjoining station. All police stations

surrounding the said police station, which are adjacent to it and

abutting it with common boundary would be adjoining police

stations to that police station. To that extent, law is fairly well-

settled and there is no dispute relating to the legal position in this

regard.

15) However, when a crime was registered by CID Police Station,

of a State and when the office of the Crime Investigation

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

Department which exercises jurisdiction over the entire State is

itself declared as a police station for the entire State, under

Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., and when a similar notification under

Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. was also issued by the Government of the

neighbouring State, which is adjoining to the said State, declaring

the office of the Crime Investigation Department as a police station

for that entire State, whether the CID Police Station of the

neighbouring State can be construed as an adjoining station for

the purpose of exercising the power by the Investigating Officer

under Section 160 Cr.P.C. is the main controversy involved in

these two Writ Petitions.

16) In this context, it is relevant to go through Section 2(s) of

Cr.P.C. which defines "police station" and it reads thus:

"2(s). "Police station" means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;"

17) A reading of the definition of "police station", as defined

under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., makes it clear that any post or place

declared generally or specially by the State Government to be a

police station, and includes any local area specified by the State

Government in this behalf is to be considered as a police station in

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

legal parlance. Therefore, the power to declare generally or

specially a particular place to be a "police station" is conferred by

the statute on the State Government. In exercise of the said

power conferred on the State Government under Section 2(s) of

Cr.P.C., the Government of erstwhile combined State of Andhra

Pradesh issued notification in G.O.Ms.No.439, Home (Pol.D)

Department, long back in the year 1988 i.e. on 05.10.1988,

declaring the office of the C.I.D. Andhra Pradesh as a police

station for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh under clause (s)

of Section 2 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the office of the C.I.D. of

the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was the police station for

the entire combined State of Andhra Pradesh, by virtue of the said

notification, dated 05.10.1988, that was given by the Government

of Andhra Pradesh.

18) The erstwhile combined State of Andhra Pradesh was

bifurcated under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014,

into two States i.e. State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of

Telangana. Thereafter, considering the letter addressed by the

Director General of Police of Andhra Pradesh, the Government of

Andhra Pradesh issued notification in G.O.Ms.No.129, Home

(Services.III) Department, dated 02.08.2017, permitting shifting of

the Crime Investigation Department Police Station from

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

Hyderabad to Amaravati for the entire State of Andhra

Pradesh stating that the officer nominated by the Head of the CID

shall be the Station House Officer for the CID Police Station within

the meaning of Section 2(o) of Cr.P.C. for the said police station.

Therefore, it is now clear that the Crime Investigation Department

Police Station, which is shifted from Hyderabad to Amaravati, is

the police station for the entire present State of Andhra Pradesh.

Similarly, considering the letter addressed by the Director General

of Police of the State of Telangana, the Government of Telangana,

also issued notification in G.O.Ms.No.17 Home (Legal)

Department, dated 07.08.2014, in exercise of its power conferred

by clause (s) of Section 2 of Cr.P.C., declaring the office of the

Crime Investigation Department, Telangana, Hyderabad as a

Police Station for the entire State of Telangana. As the said two

notifications are crucial and assume significance in the context of

interpreting the term 'adjoining station' as contemplated under

Section 160(1) Cr.P.C., they are extracted in juxtaposition and

they read thus:

G.O.Ms.No.129 Home (Services-III) G.O.Ms.No.17 Home (Legal) Department, dt.02.08.2017, Department, dt.07.08.2014, issued by Issued by the Government of Andhra the Government of Telangana. Pradesh.

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

NOTIFICATION NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by In exercise of the power conferred by clause (s) of Section (2) of the Code of clause (s) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act (II) of 1974), the Government of No.2 of 1974), the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby accord Telangana hereby declare the Office of permission for shifting of Crime the Crime Investigation Department, Investigation Department Police Telangana, Hyderabad as a Police Station from Hyderabad to Station for the entire State of Amaravathi for the entire State of Telangana and direct that one of the Andhra Pradesh and the officer Inspectors of Police working in the nominated by the Head of the CID said office, nominated for this purpose shall be the Station House Officer for by the Head of the said office shall be the CID Police Station within the the Station House Officer within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Cr.P.C. meaning of clause (o) of Section 2 of for the said Police Station. Code of Criminal Procedure for the said Police Station."

19) It is evident from the aforesaid two notifications issued by

both the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of

Telangana, that both the Governments in exercise of the power

conferred under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C. declared the offices of the

Crime Investigation Department in both the States as Police

Stations for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and the entire

State of Telangana. So, the Crime Investigation Department Police

Station in Andhra Pradesh exercises jurisdiction over the entire

State of Andhra Pradesh and so also the Crime Investigation

Department Police Station in the State of Telangana exercises

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

jurisdiction over the entire State of Telangana within the territorial

limits of both the States. Admittedly, both the State of Andhra

Pradesh and the State of Telangana are adjoining States abutting

each other State. So, the CID Police Station of the State of

Telangana, which is declared as a Police Station for the entire

State of Telangana, is undoubtedly an adjoining police station of

the CID Police Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is

declared as a CID Police Station for the entire State of Andhra

Pradesh. Therefore, while interpreting the term 'adjoining station'

as contemplated under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C., it is to be

construed that the CID Police Station of the entire State of

Telangana as the adjoining station of the CID Police Station of the

State of Andhra Pradesh. When the CID Police Station in Andhra

Pradesh is exercising jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra

Pradesh, there cannot be any adjoining station to it within the

State. Therefore, as the two CID Police Stations both in the State

of Andhra Pradesh and State of Telangana are declared as Police

Stations for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., the only

inevitable conclusion that can be drawn in the facts and

circumstances of the case is that the place of Hyderabad which is

within the territorial limits of the CID Police Station of the State of

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

Telangana, undoubtedly, falls within the expression 'adjoining

station' of CID Police Station of Andhra Pradesh State for the

purpose of Section 160 Cr.P.C. Therefore, a combined reading of

Section 160(1) Cr.P.C., Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., along with the

aforesaid two notifications, makes the position very clear that the

CID Police Stations in both the States of Andhra Pradesh and

Telangana are adjoining stations to each other police stations. In

that view of the matter, it cannot be held under any stretch of

reasoning that the impugned notices issued under Section 160

Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer of CID Police Station of State of

Andhra Pradesh, are legally not valid or without jurisdiction. So,

it is within the competence of the Investigating Officer in Crime

No.12 of 2021 of CID Police Station, Andhra Pradesh, to issue the

impugned notices to the petitioners.

20) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in W.P.No.33022 of

2022 Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, would contend that even if the

said two notifications are taken into consideration, only the place

adjoining the border of the State of Telangana shall only be

considered as adjoining station and not the Hyderabad, which is

far away from the border of the State of Andhra Pradesh and from

the border of State of Telangana. The said argument has no merit.

When the office of the CID is declared as a Police Station for the

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

entire State of Andhra Pradesh and the office of the CID is

declared as a Police Station for the entire State of Telangana, no

such narrow interpretation can be given limiting the notifications

only to the area at the border of both the States.

21) In fact, the Apex Court in the case of Hukma v. State of

Rajasthan1 had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in a

different context, where it is sought to be contended that the word

'adjoining' used in notification is only to be restricted to a few

miles from the border of the State. The Apex Court did not accept

the said contention. That was a case where notification in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Land

Customs Act, 1924 read with the notification of the Government of

India issued by the Finance (Central Revenues) Department, was

issued by the Central Board of Revenue, appointing certain

officers specified in the schedule given in the said notification i.e.

all offices of the Rajasthan Civil Police and the Rajasthan Armed

Constabulary of and above the rank of Head Constable posted in

the Districts of Barmer, Bikaner, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer and

Jalore in the State of Rajasthan, to be Land Customs Officers

within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs, Delhi.

1 AIR 1965 SC 476

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

22) The notification reads as follows:

"1. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (i) of Section 3 of the Land Customs Act, 1924 (19 of 1924) read with the notification of the Government of India in the late Finance Deptt. (Central Revenues) No. 5444, dated 1st December, 1924, the Central Board of Revenue hereby appoints for the areas adjoining the Land Customs Frontier? separating West Pakistan from India, the officers of the Government of Rajasthan specified in the schedule hereto annexed, to be Land Customs Officers within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Land Customs, Delhi."

"The Schedule."

"All officers of the Rajasthan Civil Police and the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary of and above the rank of Head Constable posted in the Districts of Barmer, Bikaner, Ganganagar, Jaisalmer and Jalore in the State of Rajasthan."

23) As per the facts of the said case, Lal Singh, the Inspector at

the check-post of Barmer, on receipt of information that gold is

being smuggled, seized certain gold from the possession of the

accused in the train running between Kerala and Pali. A

contention was raised that Lal Singh, who is the Customs Officer,

who seized the gold, was not the officer appointed for the said

place where the gold was seized. It is also contended that the

above notification conferred authority on the Customs Officer only

for the area within few miles from the border while making an

attempt to interpret the word "adjoining" used in the notification.

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

The Apex Court held that we see no justification for such a

restricted construction of the word "adjoining" and held as follows:

"...we can see nothing wrong in the entire State of Rajasthan adjoining the West Pakistan frontier. It appears to us that the Central Government treated the whole compact block consisting of the State of Punjab, State of Jammu and Kashmir and State of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh and Delhi as one area adjoining the West Pakistan frontier, and for this one area it appointed a Collector of Land Customs. ...".

24) The Apex Court further held that, every Officer mentioned in

the schedule of the notification would be a customs officer not for

any particular District mentioned in the Schedule, but for the

whole area which forms the jurisdiction of the Collector of

Land Customs, Delhi and in the area adjoining the West

Pakistan frontier for which a Collector of Land Customs has

already been appointed under Section 3.

25) Thus, from the above interpretation given by the Apex Court,

in the facts situation obtained in the said case, while interpreting

the word 'adjoining', it is now clear that the same cannot be

restricted only to the area at the border or few miles from the

border and it covers the area of the entire State over which

jurisdiction is conferred by the notification that was issued.

Though the facts of the said reported case are different, the ratio

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

laid down in the aforesaid judgment is applicable for the purpose

of deciding the controversy involved in these Writ Petitions as

similar contention was also raised.

26) Therefore, the said contention raised by the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioner Sri Posani Venkateswarlu holds no

water.

27) The other judgments viz., Pusma Investment (P) Ltd. v.

State of Meghalaya2; Sri Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India 3;

Kulvinder Singh Kohli v. State of NCT of Delhi4; Jamshed Adil

Khan v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir 5; Abhishek

Banerjee v. Directorate of Enforcement 6; Abhishek Banerjee v.

Directorate of Enforcement7; Krishan Bans BNhadur v. The

State of Himachal Pradesh8; Mathews Peter v. Asst. Police

Inspector, Crime Branch-II, Pune9; and Directorate of

Enforcement v. State of West Bengal10 relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioners are all of no avail to the case of the

2 (2010) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 74 3 Judgment, dt.03.02.2022, in WPA No.1839 of 2022 of Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side) 4 Judgment, dt.10.06.2022, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.611 of 2022 of Delhi High Court. 5 Judgment, dt.08.07.2022, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.976/2022 of Delhi High Court. 6 Judgment, dt.11.03.2022, in W.P.(Crl.)No.1808 of 2021 of Delhi High Court. 7 Order, dt.17.05.2022, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.2806 and

2807 of 2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8 1975 Cri.LJ 620 9 2002 Cri.LJ 1585 = (2002) 3 ALT 47 10 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5603

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

petitioners. In all the above referred judgments, the Courts found

that the persons, to whom notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was

issued by the police officer, are not residing within the limits of the

police station of the said officer or within the limits of the

adjoining police station. In the present case, the petitioners are

found to be residing within the limits of the adjoining station.

28) Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.32906 of 2022

Sri Umesh Chandra PVG would contend that earlier notice under

Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner and now again

a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. is issued, which clearly

indicates that they have treated the petitioner as an accused in

the said case on account of issuance of notice under Section 41-A

of Cr.P.C. and that the impugned notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C.

cannot be given to the accused. He would submit that the

expression "person" used in Section 160 Cr.P.C. do not cover the

accused. It is his case that it pertains only to the witnesses. He

then contends that if the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. is given

summoning the accused for investigation, to examine him, it

violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India as it amounts to

testimonial compulsion by making an effort to secure

incriminating evidence by force from the accused. So, on that

ground, he would also oppose the present notice. In support of

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

his contention, he relied on the judgment of Inspector of Police

v. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate11. Thus, the contention of learned

counsel is two-fold i.e. (1) notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. cannot

be given to accused and (2) it also amounts to testimonial

compulsion and it would be violative of Article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India.

29) The said contention is devoid of merit. The said judgment in

N.M.T. Joy Immaculate8 was rendered by a three-Judge Bench of

the Apex Court. One of the Hon'ble Judges in the separate

judgment held that Section 160 Cr.P.C. is applicable only to the

witnesses and not to the accused. It was not the opinion of the

majority in the said judgment. In this context, it is pertinent to

note that the three-Judge of the Apex Court in the case of Nandini

Satpathy v. P.L. Dani12 had an occasion to decide whether the

police have power under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to question a person,

who, in future, may incarnate as an accused. The three-Judge

Bench of the Apex Court unanimously held as follows:

"We hold that 'any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case' includes an accused person who fills that role because the police suppose him to have

11 AIR 2004 SC 2282 12 (1978) 2 SCC 424

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

committed the crime and must, therefore, be familiar with the facts. The supposition may later prove a fiction but that does not repel the section. Nor does the marginal note 'examination of witnesses by police' clinch the matter. A marginal note clears ambiguity but does not control meaning. Moreover, the suppositions accused figures functionally as a witness. 'To be a witness', from a functional angle, is to impart knowledge in respect of a relevant fact, and that is precisely the purpose of questioning the accused under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The dichotomy between 'witnesses' and 'accused' used as terms of art, does not hold good here. The amendment, by Act XV of 1941, of Section 162(2) of the Cr.P.C. is a legislative acceptance of the Pakala Narayana Swamy reasoning and guards against a possible repercussion of the ruling. The appellant squarely fell within the interrogational ring. To hold otherwise is to fold up investigative exercise, since questioning suspects is desirable for detection of crime and even protection of the accused. Extreme positions may boomerang in law as in politics."

30) Even as regards Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India

also, the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that it has no

application to examination of the accused under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. Relying on the said judgment of Nandini Satpathy9, the

Madras High Court in the case of Pulavar B.M. Senguttuvan v.

The State13 held as follows:

"Therefore, there is no gainsaying that either the act of the respondent is against the law or against the spirit of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and hence even interpreting Section 160(1)

13Order, dated 18.09.2003, in Crl.Original Petition No.25945 of 2003 of the Madras High Court.

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

Cr.P.C. in conformity with the above constitutional provision, the conclusion that could be arrived at is 'any person' mentioned in Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. means and includes 'any accused person' and they could be summoned to appear as witnesses since such a summons issued to an accused in a case under investigation by the Investigating Officer is not at all violative of the Article 20(3 ) of the Constitution of India.."

31) It is also clear from the aforesaid judgment that even a

suspect can also be summoned under Section 160(1) and 161

Cr.P.C. for examination by the police.

32) Eventhough the name of the petitioner in W.P.No.32906 of

2022 is not shown as an accused in the F.I.R., earlier a notice

under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. was given to him. Probably as a

suspect, the said notice was given to him. Subsequently, notice

under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. was given to him requiring his

presence before the police officer for examination. Therefore,

whether he is an accused or a witness, since both the accused and

witnesses are now coming within the ambit of the expression "any

person" used in Section 160(1) Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot seek

to impeach the impugned notice on the ground that no such

notice under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. can be given to an accused.

The contention relating to the bar under Article 20(3) of the

Constitution of India also holds no water in view of the aforesaid

judgment of the Apex Court. It does not amount to testimonial

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

compulsion. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner also holds no water.

33) In view of the above discussion, none of the grounds urged

by the petitioners assailing the impugned notices issued under

Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. is legally sustainable. Therefore, the

impugned notices are perfectly valid under law.

34) In fine, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

35) The Investigating Officer shall inform in writing the fresh

date of appearance to the petitioners for their compliance with the

said notices. At the time of examination of the petitioners after

their appearance, the concerned police officers of C.I.D. shall not

take any coercive steps against the petitioners in view of the

direction given by the Apex Court that no coercive steps shall be

taken against the personnel of the said two T.V. news channels.

They shall treat them with all human dignity and shall strictly

confine themselves only to examine them in respect of the facts

with which they are acquainted relating to the offences, for which

the F.I.R. was registered. They shall not be subjected to any

pointless grilling. The police officers shall scrupulously comply

with the above directions and any infraction of the same will be

viewed seriously.

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,

shall also stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:18-10-2022.

Note:

L.R. Copy to be marked.

B/O cs

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

+ Writ Petition Nos.32906 and 33022 of 2022

% Dated 18-10-2022

W.P.No.32906 of 2022:

# Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya Satynarayana Murthy ..... Petitioner Vs.

$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, A.P. & Ors.

                                                    .....Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioners        :

Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Learned senior counsel for Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.33022 of 2022; Sri Umesh Chandra PVG, Learned counsel for petitioner in WP No.32906 of 2022

^ Counsel for respondents: Learned Advocate-General, and Smt.Y.L.Sivakalpana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-

Spl.Public Prosecutor for CID.

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1 AIR 1965 SC 476 2 (2010) 1 Gauhati Law Reports 74 3 Judgment, dt.03.02.2022, in WPA No.1839 of 2022 of Calcutta High Court (Appellate

Side) 4 Judgment, dt.10.06.2022, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.611 of 2022 of Delhi High Court. 5 Judgment, dt.08.07.2022, in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.976/2022 of Delhi High Court. 6 Judgment, dt.11.03.2022, in W.P.(Crl.)No.1808 of 2021 of Delhi High Court. 7 Order, dt.17.05.2022, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.2806 and

2807 of 2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8 1975 Cri.LJ 620 9 2002 Cri.LJ 1585 = (2002) 3 ALT 47 10 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5603 11 AIR 2004 SC 2282 12 (1978) 2 SCC 424 13 Order, dated 18.09.2003, in Crl.Original Petition No.25945 of 2003 of the Madras

High Court.

CMR,J.

W.P.Nos.32906 & 33022 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Writ Petition Nos.32906 and 33022 of 2022

W.P.No.32906 of 2022

Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya Satynarayana Murthy ..... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, A.P. & Ors.

.....Respondents

COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 18-10-2022

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers --