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 3 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.
(c) The petitioners now challenge the legal validity of the 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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. 8
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:9
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 10 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.
11
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 12 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 13 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 14 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.15
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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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. 20
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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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.25
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 26 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.
27
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 28 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.29
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 --
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked -Yes- to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see -Yes- the fair copy of the Judgment?
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY