Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(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 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.

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.

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.