9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Notice under Section 166, Cr.P.C. To Shri Sunil Bhansali Director, Pusma Investment Pvt. Ltd. 71, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002. Ref : Laban P.S. Case No. 63(11)04 under Section 408/415/418/420/423/424/464/468/471/120B. I.P.C. You are hereby directed to appear before the undersigned on the 10 day of Dec. 2007 at the office of the Addl. Director General of Police CID (Hqr) Meghalaya, Shillong at 1.0 a.m. positively for recording your statement in connection the above noted case. Further, you are to bring all the relevant documents pertaining to your company with complete books of account, investment registers, return and documents filed with ROC, income tax returns, balance sheet, minute books and bank statements from 1997 till date. You are also to bring your personal income tax returns and bank statements from 1997 till date. Herein fail not. Sd/- (C. Syrti MPS) Investigating Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID HQ, Meghalaya, Shillong Dated Shillong, The 1st Nov., 2007. Office of the Addl. Director General of Police, CID (HQR) Meghalaya, Shillong. Notice under Section 160/91, Cr.P.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed (a) to affect Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891). or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority. 160. Police Officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.-- (1) Any police officer making m 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 police 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 woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case, it is not necessary that he should be residing within the limits of the police station of the investigating officer or any adjoining police station. He heavily relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Anirudha S. Bhagat v. Ramnivas Meena 2005 Cri LJ 3346 (DB) in support of his contention. He contends that the petitioners have no case for resisting the summons and are only interested in stalling the investigation of the case to avoid criminal prosecution of heinous crimes. He, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition with heavy costs. 5. Section 160, Cr.P.C. authorizes a police officer making an investigation, by order in writing, (i) to require the attendance before himself, (ii) of any person, who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and (iii) who is residing within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining police station. The expression "who being within the limits of his own" read with the words following it, namely, "or any adjoining station" can only mean the person, who is to be summoned, must reside within the limits of the police station of the poli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imits of his own or any adjoining station". In my opinion, such interpretation is against all canons of interpretation. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplus age, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute (see Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369). "In the interpretation of statutes", observed Das Gupta, J. in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1170 (at page 1174), "the Courts presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect." The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. When the language of Section 160 is plain and unambiguous, this Court cannot plunge headlong into a discussion of the reason which motivated the Legislature into enacting this provision and took into consideration the hardship and inconvenience being caused to the investigati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
