Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Harmandeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CRM-M-34203-2021
Decided On : 17-09-2021
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Advance Notice - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C. and its applicability to witnesses and accused. It also referred to the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, particularly Section 13 and Section 21, which specify the jurisdiction of Special Courts and the procedure for appeals. The court emphasized that the petition sought advance notice before arrest/detention and did not challenge the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The court also highlighted the limitations on anticipatory bail under Section 43-D (4) of the Act of 1967 and the requirement to file bail applications before the Special Court. The judgment emphasized that the court should not interfere with the investigation and that the petitioner's apprehension of arrest did not justify the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, sought advance notice before arrest/detention in response to a notice issued by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The petitioner did not challenge the notice and expressed apprehension of arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable as the petitioner sought advance notice before arrest/detention and did not challenge the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the limitations on anticipatory bail under the Act of 1967 and the requirement to file bail applications before the Special Court. The court also held that the petition would open a pandora's box and prejudice the investigation.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court also considered the applicability of Section 160 Cr.P.C. to witnesses and accused, the limitations on anticipatory bail under the Act of 1967, and the jurisdiction of Special Courts and the procedure for appeals under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable as the petitioner sought advance notice before arrest/detention and did not challenge the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized the limitations on anticipatory bail under the Act of 1967 and the requirement to file bail applications before the Special Court. The court also held that the petition would open a pandora's box and prejudice the investigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for directing the Respondents to give an advance notice in case the Petitioner is required to be detained pursuant to the Notice dated 13.08.2021(Annexure P-3) issued by the respondent No.3. i.e. National Investigation Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “NIA”).
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is stated to be working as Work Inspector in the P.W.D Department, Punjab since the year 2016. An FIR No.135 dated 25.04.2020 was registered under Sections 10,11,13,17,18,20,21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1967) at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar in which two persons namely Bikram Singh @ Vicky and Maninder Singh @ Manni were arrested. The investigation in the same was transferred to NIA and the case was registered as RC- 23/2020/NIA/DLI dated 08.05.2020 under Sections 10 ,11,13,17,18,20,21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Amendment 2012). During investigation, the name of one Gursant Singh S/o Dilbagh Singh, who is stated to be the paternal uncle of the petitioner, surfaced and the said Gursant Singh was arrested by the NIA in June 2020 and since then, he is in custody. The challan in the case has been presented against 8 persons including the said Gursant Singh as apparent from the orders dated 20.10.2020 as well as 12.08.2021. It is further submitted that on 13.08.2021, the NIA issued a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in which the petitioner was directed to appear on 15.08.2021 at 16:00 hours. It is submitted that instead of complying with the said notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and appearing before the NIA, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
It has been averred in paragraph 6 of the present petition that the petitioner was on duty on 15.08.2021 on the occasion of Independence Day being a government servant. At any rate, no reply was filed to the said notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. nor the petitioner has appeared in pursuance of the same before the NIA.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provision of Section 160 Cr.P.C., it is only a witness who can be summoned and the said fact is apparent from a conjoint reading of Sub-Section 1 and 2 of Section 160. A reference has been made to Section 160 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under:
“160. Police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses.—(1) 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:
Provided that no male person [under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person] shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.”
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the heading of the said Section clearly shows that it is for attendance of witnesses and not for attendance of accused. It is further submitted that since under Sub Section 2, the State Government has been permitted to frame rules to provide for payment of reasonable expenses to every person attending in pursuance of Notice under Section 160 (1), at any place other than his residence, the same would indicate that the said provision is meant for witnesses and not for accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Rep. by Inspector of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
