Police Officer Cannot Issue Notice U/S 179(1) BNSS Beyond The Limits Of His Own Or Adjoining Station: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Court held that the power of a police officer to require attendance under Section 179(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is confined to persons residing within the limits of his own or adjoining station, though such officer may examine them at their residence.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a police officer making an investigation has no power under Section 179(1) of the BNSS to require the attendance of any person residing outside the limits of his own or adjoining police station.
The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging repeated notices issued to the petitioner, a resident of Noida, under Section 179 BNSS by the Investigation Team in connection with an offence registered in Andhra Pradesh.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa while adjudicating the matter, held that although Section 179(1) empowers the police officer to secure attendance of persons acquainted with the facts of the case, “the language employed under Section 179(1) of BNSS regarding ‘within the limit of his own Police Station or any adjoining station’ restricts 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.”
Advocate T. Nagarjuna Reddy appeared for the petitioner, while Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel, assisted Sai Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor, represented the respondents.
Background
The CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, had registered an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The petitioner, who was not named as an accused but a Director of a company, was issued multiple notices by the Investigating Officer under Section 179 BNSS directing him to appear at Vijayawada. The petitioner, a resident of Noida and aged above 65 years, contended that compelling him to travel long distances despite his ill-health was contrary to the BNSS provisions.
He prayed that any examination be conducted at his residence or at a neutral place in Noida, in the presence of his advocate, and through audio-video coverage under Section 180 BNSS.
The respondents defended the notices, arguing that the provisos appended to Section 179 enabled the officer to secure attendance beyond jurisdiction and contended that age-related claims of the petitioner were factually incorrect.
Court’s Observations
The Andhra Pradesh High Court extracted Section 179 BNSS alongside its predecessor provision under the Cr.P.C. The Bench observed that while Section 179 authorises a police officer to require attendance, such authority is restricted by two conditions, one of them being that the person must reside within the limits of the officer’s own police station or any adjoining station.
The Court underscored that the phrase “within the limits of his own or any adjoining station” is a jurisdictional restriction, and hence, “Power of the Police Officer making an investigation to have the presence of “any person” before him by issuing a notice under Section 179 of BNSS is not untrammelled.”
Further, on examining the provisos, the Court held that males below 15 or above 60, women, persons with disabilities, or those with acute illness fall within the exceptions and cannot be compelled to attend at a place other than their residence.
Such persons, the Court remarked, may only be examined at their residence, unless they themselves express willingness to attend the police station. The Court observed that the object of these provisos is to protect vulnerable categories from hardship while preserving dignity under Article 21.
The Court explained that the introduction of the second proviso was to allow individuals, if they so wish, to be examined at the police station rather than at home, thereby avoiding stigma or inconvenience.
The Court, however, clarified that while notices cannot be issued to persons outside jurisdiction, that “does not preclude the Police Officer making an investigation to examine such person by approaching him at his place.” It also noted that Section 180 BNSS permits statements to be recorded through audio-video means.
Conclusion
Allowing the writ petition, the Court declared the notice issued under Section 179 BNSS to the petitioner, a resident of Noida, as “without jurisdiction.” However, it permitted the Investigating Officer to examine the petitioner at his residence, in the presence of his advocate, with the statement recorded by electronic means as provided by law.
The petition was disposed of with liberty to the Investigating Officer to proceed in accordance with the governing rules and law.
Cause Title: V.D. Moorthy S/O N. Vishwanathan Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: APHC010443902025)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate T. Nagarjuna Reddy
Respondents: Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel, Sai Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor
