Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a police officer can require a person to appear at the officer's office under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when that person is neither a resident within the officer's jurisdiction nor within adjoining limits.
Analysis: Section 160 empowers a police officer conducting an investigation under Chapter XII to require attendance only of a person who is within the limits of the officer's own station or an adjoining station and who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case. As the petitioner was admittedly residing and working at Ernakulam and was outside the territorial limits contemplated by the provision, the officer could not direct him to appear at Thiruvananthapuram. The notice therefore could not be sustained, although the investigating officer remained free to question the petitioner and record his statement by approaching him.
Conclusion: The notice requiring the petitioner to appear was not valid and was liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief against the impugned notice, while the investigation itself was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A police officer's power under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is territorially confined to persons within the officer's own station or adjoining stations, and cannot be used to compel attendance of a person outside that limit.