Section 160 CrPC deals with police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses. Sub Section (1) reads as follows: 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.
Sub-section (2) of Section 160 further provides that the State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under Sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.
The question is whether a police officer can require a person who is not a resident within within the limits of his own police station or adjoining station ?
Gauhati High Court
According to Gauhati High Court in Pusma Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V. State of Meghalaya & Ors. 2010 Cri. L.J. 56, the conjoint reading of both the sub-sections and the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 160 plainly indicate the following:
1.The person to be summoned by the officer making the investigation must reside within the local limits of his own police station or within the adjoining area,
2. In the case of a male person under the age of fifteen years or woman, their attendance cannot be enforced at any place other than their residence even if they reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation or within the limits of the adjoining police station
3. Reasonable expenses of every person other than a male person under the age of fifteen years or woman attending such requisition at any place within the limits of the police station shall have to be paid by the concerned police officer as per rules framed by the State Government in this behalf.
If the contention that under Section 160, the police officer making the investigation is not disabled from requiring the attendance of a witness residing beyond the local limits of his police station or adjoining station, is accepted, that will amount to ignoring the words “being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station”. In my opinion, such interpretation is against all canons of interpretation“, the High Court observed while disagreeing with the view taken by Bombay High Court in Anirudha S.Bhagat vs. Ramnivas Meena and another 2005 Crl. L.J.3346 :: 2005 (4) MhLJ 41.
Delhi HC, Himachal Pradesh HC , Andhra Pradesh HC
This view is shared by Delhi High Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. State of West Bengal {2021 SCC OnLine Del 5603}. It also refers to similar views taken in Ravinder Singh V. State and Anr., W.P. (Crl.) No. 971/2010 And Crl. M.A. Nos. 8234-8235/2010, order dated 27.07.2010; T Purshotam V. Circel Inspector of Police & Ors. 1997 Cri. L.J. 4011 (Andhra Pradesh); Krishan Bans Bhadur & Anr. V. The State of H.P. 1975 Cri. L.J.620 (Himachal Pradesh); Mathews Peter V. Asst. Police Inspector & Ors. 2002 Cri. L.J. 1585 (Andhra Pradesh)
Bombay HC and Allahabad HC
In Anirudha, the Division Bench of Bombay HC observed that, once it is revealed to the Investigating Officer that at the relevant time the person had occasion to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case in respect of an offence which had occurred or he had been within the territorial limits of the police station to which the police officer is attached to or in the territorial limits of the adjoining police station, nothing prevents the police officer to summon the person even though at the time of issuance of the summon, the person is found to be either residing or carrying business beyond the territorial limits of the police station to which the Investigation Officer is attached to.
This view is seen reiterated by Allahabad High Court in Rajinder B. Lal Vs. State of U.P., in which it observed that the cardinal principle of the section 160 is requirement of attendance of the person within the jurisdiction mentioned therein. “The section does not say to whom the notice of interrogation will be served, he has to be resident of such jurisdiction. Therefore, receiving of notice outside the jurisdiction of the appropriate police authority can not give any cause of action for not attending there as per the requirement. If this Court holds that a police authority can not issue any notice to any person, who does not stay within his jurisdiction or within the adjoining jurisdiction of the station, it will lead to an absurd proposition of law. No police officer can be able to investigate the crime freely. On the other hand, it is fundamental duty of a citizen to co-operate with the police in respect of an inquiry and investigation to bring out the truth.”, the court observed.
Following these decisions, the Delhi High Court in in Anant Brahmachari V. Union of India ILR (2012) III Delhi 682 observed thus : “When a Police officer is investigating an offence, he has to investigate all the facets thereof. The power of investigation cannot be fettered by directing a Police officer to be able to call only persons acquainted with the facts of the case who resides either under the jurisdiction of the Police station or adjoining thereto. Further, there can be no limit prescribed to an adjoining station. Section 160(1) Cr.PC does not restrict the power of a Police Officer to examine only a person who is residing within the limits of such Police Station or adjoining Police Station. The qualifying words are „summons to a person who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case‟. The purpose of investigation is to collect material evidence. The same cannot be restricted by limiting the scope of Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. to persons who are residing within the limits of the said Police station or adjoining Police Station. The contention of the Petitioner is also fallacious on the count that in a case where statements of number of witnesses or persons are required to be recorded who reside within jurisdictions of different Police Stations and are required to be confronted with each other to find out the true facts, the same would not be possible if they cannot be called to a Police Station beyond the jurisdiction in which they live or adjoining police station.” But the said judgment was dealing with a separate statutory setup in the nature of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
CiteCase View
Suppose a crime is committed in Chennai and A is an eye witness to the said crime. However, A is resident of Delhi and had witnessed the crime while he was visiting Chennai. Does this mean that he cannot be required by the Chennai police to give his statement under Section 161 CrPC merely because he is not a resident of Chennai? Certainly, the Bombay High Court view ignores the expression ‘any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station‘ while interpeting the provision liberally. But this view will help the cause of investigation.