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 proceedings for an alleged offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained when the underlying order requiring attendance was issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to persons not within the limits of the police station or an adjoining station.
Analysis: Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowered a police officer to require attendance only of a person being within the limits of his own or an adjoining police station. The petitioners were shown to be at New Delhi when the order was issued, and there was no material to show that they were within the territorial limits required by the provision. The order was therefore issued without jurisdiction and could not create a lawful obligation to attend. In the absence of a valid and competent order, failure to comply could not amount to an offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code.
Conclusion: The proceedings were quashed and the petition was allowed in favour of the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: A prosecution under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code cannot stand where the alleged default is based on an attendance order issued without jurisdiction under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: An offence for non-attendance cannot arise unless the underlying direction to attend is a valid order issued by a public servant legally competent to make it.