High Court Rules Out-of-Jurisdiction Notices Invalid; Personal Attendance Not Required for Document Production.

The HC quashed the notices issued under Section 160, Cr.P.C., ruling them ultra vires as the petitioners resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the investigating officer's police station. It declared that no further notices should be issued to enforce their attendance from Delhi. Additionally, the HC held that personal attendance was not necessary under Section 91, Cr.P.C., for document production. The writ petition succeeded, and no costs were imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of notices issued under Section 160/91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Territorial jurisdiction under Section 160, Cr.P.C.
3. Requirement of personal attendance for document production under Section 91, Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Notices Issued under Section 160/91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The petitioners challenged the notices issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Headquarters, Meghalaya, Shillong, under Sections 160 and 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These notices required the petitioners, residing in New Delhi and Faridabad, to appear in Shillong for recording statements and producing documents related to Laban P.S. Case No. 63(11)04 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court examined the provisions of Sections 91 and 160, Cr.P.C., to determine the legality of these notices.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction under Section 160, Cr.P.C.:
Section 160, Cr.P.C., authorizes a police officer making an investigation to require the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, provided that the person resides within the limits of the officer's own police station or any adjoining police station. The Court noted that the petitioners, being residents of New Delhi and Faridabad, were not within the limits of Shillong Police Station or any adjoining police station. The Court emphasized that the language of Section 160 is clear and unambiguous, restricting the summoning of persons to those residing within the local limits of the investigating officer's police station or adjoining stations. Consequently, the Court found the notices issued under Section 160 to be ultra vires and unsustainable in law.

3. Requirement of Personal Attendance for Document Production under Section 91, Cr.P.C.:
Section 91, Cr.P.C., allows a court or police officer to require the production of documents or other things necessary for investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceedings. The Court clarified that while the production of documents can be required, the personal attendance of the person possessing the documents cannot be insisted upon. The mere production of the required documents would suffice. Therefore, the Court declared that the personal attendance of the petitioners before the respondent for document production was not necessary under Section 91, Cr.P.C.

Conclusion:
The Court quashed the impugned notices issued under Section 160, Cr.P.C., and declared that no further notices under this section should be issued to the petitioners to enforce their attendance from Delhi as witnesses in connection with the case. Regarding the notice under Section 91, Cr.P.C., the Court held that the personal attendance of the petitioners was not necessary for producing the required documents. The writ petition succeeded, and no costs were imposed.

---