Back
2005 Supreme(Bom) 543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
ANIRUDHA S. BHAGAT
Versus
RAMNIVAS MEENA
Decided On Date: 20/04/05
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 91 and 160 - Issuance of summons/notice. - Notice/Summons issued under Section 160 of Cr PC for production of document not bad in law since such power is available under Section 91 of Cr PC. - Petitioner challenged the summonses issued to him by the Investigation Agency on two grounds, namely that the Investigating Agency has no jurisdiction or power to issue summons to a person residing or carrying on business beyond the territorial limits of the police station to which the Investigating Agency is attached and secondly that summons for production of document can only be issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under Section 160 thereof.
Held, Section 91 of Criminal Procedure Code specifically empowers the Investigating Agency to issue summons for production of a document relevant for the purpose of investigation. But at the same time it is well-settled law that in case of a wrong mentioning of any statutory provision that by itself would not render any order issued by the competent authority to be bad in law. Once power exists in any office to perform a particular function, merely because the authority while exercising such function makes reference to an incorrect provision of law, that itself will not divest such authority from performing the function, nor the exercise of function would be rendered illegal on that count. Being so, merely because summons referred to Section 160 of the Code while directing the party to produce the document or that it requires the party to appear before the Investigating Officer along with any particular document that by itself will not render the summons to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of law. The provisions under Sections 91 and 160 of the Code relate to the procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer in the course of the investigation. The procedure prescribed is necessary to assist the Investigating Officer to bring out the truth relating to the offence in relation to which the investigating officer investigates into a matter. Being so, mere mentioning of a wrong provision of law that itself cannot render the action to be bad in law. Therefore, even though the notice is issued under Section 160 for production of document, that by itself, will not render it to be bad in law once such power is available under Section 91 of the Code.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 160 - Issuance of summons. - A person, acquainted with facts of case, can be summoned by I.O. investigating matter even though said person is staying outside jurisdiction of I.O. - Held, once Investigating Officer is satisfied that witness having knowledge of or is acquainted with facts of a case which he is investigating, there is nothing to prevent him from issuing summons to such person, even if he is carrying out business beyond the jurisdiction of said officer. When petitioner is called for collecting information as to structural design alleged to be used for construction of bridge (which collapsed) the action cannot be called as harassment of petitioner.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 160 - Summoning a person. - A person acquainted with facts of case in respect of an offence occurred within territorial limits of police station, can be summoned by police officer attached to said P.S. - 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. Any other interpretation of Section 160 would defeat the very purpose of the provision of law comprised under the said section.
Precedent - A decision of Court. - A decision of a Court, is what it decides and not what may follow from it. 1974 Cri LJ 1139; 1975 Cri LJ 620 - Referred.
R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.
( 1 ) HEARD. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the record.
( 2 ) THE petitioner challenges the summonses issued to the petitioner by the investigating Agency on two grounds, namely that the Investigating Agency has no Jurisdiction or power to issue summons to a person residing or carrying on business beyond the territorial limits of the police station to which the investigating Agency is attached and secondly that summons for production of document can only be issued under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under section 160 thereof. On both the counts according to the petitioner, the summonses issued under section 160 of the Code, which are essentially issued merely for production of document in the nature of original designs of the collapse bridge, are bad in law and need to be quashed.
( 3 ) THE facts relevant for the decision are that there existed a bridge over damanganga river in the Union Territory of Daman which was constructed in the year 1983. Some repairs were carried out to the said bridge in the year 2001, however, the bridge collapsed an 28-8-2003 taking the lives of about 25-30 people. The F. I. R. came to be lodged by the Circle Police Inspector, Daman on 28-8-2003 under sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property act, 1984 as well as section 304a, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is a Chairman and Managing director of a company known as M/s quadricon Pvt. Ltd. and the said company is engaged in the business of construction of bridge through patented construction system in quadricon. The said bridge was also constructed by the said company.
( 4 ) A summons under section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure dated 7-10-2003 came to be served upon the petitioner, which was sought to be replied by the petitioner through his advocate dated 11-10-2003. The petitioner was then served with another summons on 20-10-2003 under section 160 of the Code, which was again replied by the petitioner's advocate letter dated 27-10-2003. The petitioner apprehending the arrest preferred an anticipatory bail application before this Court being the Application No. 4438 of 2003, which was disposed of by an Order dated 31st October, 2003. The petitioner filed another application for bail being Application No. 4596 of 2003, which came to be disposed of by an order dated 8th April, 2004. By the said order the respondents were directed to give 72 hours notice to the petitioner in the event of they intending to arrest the petitioner, while directing the petitioner to co-operate with the Investigating agency another summons under section 160 of the Code came to be issued on 26th May, 2004 requiring the petitioner to remain present in the office of the 1st respondent on 4th June, 2004. It was sought to be challenged by Writ Petition no. 1085 of 2004 and the said petition was disposed of by order dated 31st august, 2004. By the said order the petitioner was required to attend the office of the 1st respondent on 13th/14th September, 2004 in relation to the said investigation. Pursuant thereto the petitioner remained present before the 1st respondent on 13th and 14th September, 2004 and his statement was recorded under section 161 of the Code. An another summons dated 14th September, 2004 came to be served upon the petitioner in his office on 23rd September, 2004 requiring the petitioner to remain present before the 1st respondent on 20th september, 2004. All these summonses are under challenge in this petition on the grounds mentioned above.
( 5 ) AS regards the summonses issued prior to 14th September, 2004 are concerned, the question of entertaining the petition at this stage does not arise at all. It is a matter of record that the petitioner had challenged the summons dated 7th October, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2004. While disposing of the said writ petition, the petitioner was specifically required to attend the police st
