Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It has been averred in paragraph 6 of the present petition that the petitioner was on duty on 15.08.2021 on the occasion of Independence Day being a government servant. At any rate, no reply was filed to the said notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. nor the petitioner has appeared in pursuance of the same before the NIA.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provision of Section 160 Cr.P.C., it is only a witness who can be summoned and the said fact is apparent from a conjoint reading of Sub 2 of 21 Section 1 and 2 of Section 160. A reference has been made to Section 160 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under:

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the heading of the said Section clearly shows that it is for attendance of witnesses and not for attendance of accused. It is further submitted that since under Sub Section 2, the State Government has been permitted to frame rules to provide for payment of reasonable expenses to every person attending in pursuance of Notice under Section 160 (1), at any place other than his residence, the same would indicate that the said provision is meant for witnesses and not for accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Rep. by Inspector of Police and others Vs. N.M.T Joy Immaculate reported as 2004(5) SCC 729 for the said proposition and has also relied upon two judgements of the High Court 3 of 21 of Jharkhand at Ranchi i.e. Writ Petition (Cr.) No.680 of 2015 titled as Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand through S.P, Vigilance, Ranchi and Writ Petition (Cr.) No.13 of 2014 titled as Dilip Garodia Vs. State of Jharkhand through Vigilance. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgement of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.11028/2021 titled as Manish Maheshwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. can only be issued in case the person to whom it is issued is being called as a witness and not as an accused. It is further submitted that in case, the petitioner is to be called as an accused then a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. should be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that he has apprehension that when he would appear before the NIA in pursuance of the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., he would be apprehended and thus, he is seeking the prayer of being given an advance notice in case he is required to be detained/arrested. For the said purpose, the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 30.09.2020 titled as Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is annexed as Annexure P-4 along with the petition. Further reference has been made to Section 43- D (4) of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1967") to state that in case, the person is alleged to have committed offences under the Act of 1967 then, since the provision of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 4 of 21 have been made inapplicable, thus, the petitioner does not have a right to file a petition for anticipatory bail and hence, has filed the present petition.

"Thus, Section 160 Criminal Procedure Code enables a police official to investigate the crime by calling such persons who have some kind of knowledge about the crime. Section 160 specifies that only a police official assigned with the investigation, can issue the notice only to any person. Thus power under Section 160 Criminal Procedure Code of issuing notice is a power exercised in investigation of a crime and to know the facts and circumstances of the case from those who are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Notice under Section 160 Criminal Procedure Code can be issued to any witness and even to a suspect, so as to know from him the facts and circumstances of the case so that an effective investigation can be done of the crime committed. Thus, there is no question of infringement of any right of a person much less fundamental right. It is settled law that the power of investigating of a crime is a statutory right of the police and the court cannot interfere into this right of the police."

17 of 21 From the above, it is apparent that even a suspect can also be called under Section 160 CrPC. However, the said issue as per this Court is purely academic in the present case as the Petitioner is not seeking setting aside/quashing of the Notice under Section 160 on any ground much less, on the ground that it could not have been issued to him.

Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Dilip Garodia (supra). The same would not further the case of the petitioner inasmuch as in the said case, the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was under challenge and it was sought to be quashed on the ground that in fact the petitioner therein had been made an accused and yet a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued. The same is not the issue in the present case as there is no challenge to the Notice under Section 160 CrPC nor is it anybody's case that the Petitioner has already been made an accused.