Andhra Pradesh High Court: The petitioner filed a writ petition, aggrieved by the repeated notices sent to him, to appear before the investigating officer in Vijayawada, pursuant to a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 316(5) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’) wherein he was not the accused. A Single Judge Bench of Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., opined that the petitioner being the resident of Noida was territorially restricted from being called at Vijayawada Police Station. Section 179(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) does not empower the Police Officer with unlimited jurisdiction to issue such notice to any person, who is residing far away. Thus, the Court stated that the Police Officer making an investigation has no power to issue notice under Section 179(1) of BNSS to any person who is not residing within the limits of his own station or any adjoining station.
Additionally, being 65-year-old and of ill-health, the petitioner fell into the exempted categories of persons as per the provisions of Section 179 of BNSS. Therefore, the Court held that the Police Station, was at liberty to take necessary steps to examine the petitioner at his place by giving prior information to the petitioner according to governing rules and law.
Background
The Director of Sigma Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited- petitioner, resident of Noida was served notice by the investigating officer pursuant to the FIR registered by the C.I.D Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 318, 316(5) read with Section 61(2) of BNS. The said notice directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and produce the relevant documents as per Section 179 of BNSS. Thereafter, the petitioner received another notice by Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) requiring him to appear before SIT at Vijayawada.
The petitioner stated that despite visiting the SIT office twice, he was again called there repeatedly. He also mentioned that his age was above 65 years, and he suffered from ill-health and was medically advised to not take long journeys. The petitioner contended that asking for multiple appearances was an abuse of process of law, by the investigating agency. Aggrieved by the same he filed a writ petition before the present Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court explained that Section 179(1) of BNSS puts legal obligation on any person to attend in obedience to the notice issued in writing under the said section and failure to do so, may lead to legal action barring certain categories of persons as mentioned in the its proviso. The Court emphasised that the power of the Police Officer to issue such notice under Section 179(1) of BNSS to the person who is not residing within the limits of his own Police Station or any adjoining station. Thus, the power of the Police Officer was territorially restricted with respect to the said section.
Further the Court stated that people falling in the ambit of exceptions of Section 179(1) BNSS i.e. male person below 15 years and above 60 years age, woman irrespective of her age etc. could be examined at their residence, by the Police Officer but liberty is given to such persons to make a request to express their willingness to examine them at the Police Station. Thus, the categories of persons as mentioned in the proviso had no legal obligation to appear before the investigating officer in obedience to the notice under the said section. The Court emphasised that the object of this proviso was that such persons, being vulnerable, were not troubled by the Police Officer in the name of investigation.
The Court opined that the said section makes it clear that the Police Officer can issue an order in writing to them by virtue of the power under Section 179(1) of BNSS, but he cannot secure their presence before him as a matter of right just because the person is acquainted with the case.
The Court observed that in the instant case, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer twice, even though the notice issued to him was without jurisdiction as he was the resident of Noida and notice was issued by Police Officer of Vijayawada. Additionally, the petitioner was a 65-year-old man and fell under the category of persons exempted to appear before the Police Officer when issued the notice under Section 179 of BNSS. In fact, as per the provisions of BNSS the Police Officer ought to examine the petitioner at his residence.
Accordingly, the Court opined that the petitioner being the resident of Noida was territorially restricted to be served notice under Section 179 of BNSS. Additionally, being 65-year-old, the petitioner fell in the exempted categories of persons who could not be compelled as a matter of right to attend before the investigating officer as per the provisions of BNSS. Therefore, the Court held that the Police Station, was at liberty to take necessary steps to examine the petitioner at his place and collect relevant documents, in the presence of his Advocate, and record such statements by giving prior information to the petitioner according to governing rules and law.
[V.D. Moorthy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3099, decided on: 22-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioner- T.Nagarjua Reddy
Advocate for the Respondents- Posani Venkateswrlu, Senior Counsel; Sai Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor
