Territorial Limitations Of Section 160 CrPC Apply Even To CBI Investigations: Calcutta High Court

In a significant judgment delivered on Thursday, the Calcutta High Court has observed that the territorial limitations as envisaged under Section 160 CrPC must apply even to investigations being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The Court had accordingly directed the CBI to not take any coercive measures against Trinamool Congress Birbhum district president Anubrata Mondal without the leave of the Court.The Court also took into consideration that Mondal was not the principal accused in the FIR registered but is merely a witness.

Mondal had moved the High Court seeking protection from arrest pursuant to the issuance of a CBI notice under Section 160 CrPC directing him to appear before its investigating team for the ongoing probe into the West Bengal post poll violence cases. He had been summoned by the CBI as a witness at the NIT camp office in Durgapur in neighbouring Paschim Bardhaman district at 11am on Thursday in connection with a murder case at Alambazar in Birbhum which is alleged to have a connection with the post-poll violence in West Bengal. 

Essentially, Section 160 CrPC allows a police officer by order in writing  to summon a witness residing within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. 

Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, 

"This Court is of the view that given the object and purpose of the Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. it must apply even to the investigations of the CBI. The fact that the CBI acts under its own manual and under the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 will not deprive a citizen of this Country, much less a person who not even the principal accused of the fairness and due process of law, which have been mandated and engraved into Section 160 of the Cr.P.C"

The Court further underscored, 

"The plain language and text of Section 160 clearly warrants protections to a notice from being removed and compelled to travel far away outside the ordinary place of residence at the whim and caprice of the Investigator"

With regards to the interpretation of Section 160 CrPC, reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in Pusma Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya although the Court noted that the investigation thereunder, was being conducted by the CID of the State.

Pertinently, the Court observed that interpretation of the powers of the CBI in Binod Kumar Kabra v. State of West Bengal and Ors and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Pranab Kumar Mukherjee that Section 2(s), 154 and 156 of the Cr.P.C. may not apply to proceedings of the CBI, must be restricted to registration of an FIR.

While dictating the order on Thursday, the Court had noted that the instant petition had become infructuous since the impugned notice issued by the CBI had directed the petitioner to appear on Thursday at 11am. However, it was observed that the notice issued under Section 160 CrPC by the CBI is still at large as such a notice has not been withdrawn by the CBI.

Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to appear and cooperate in the ongoing investigation and further observed, 

"This Court is of the view that the notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. still at large and has not been withdrawn. The CBI, if it so chooses should be entitled to fix any other time for conducting investigation and interrogating the petitioner subject inter alia to Section 160 of the Cr.P.C."

Arguments 

Senior advocate Sandipan Ganguly appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 160 CrPC authorizes only a police officer within whose jurisdiction the noticee resides to issue summons. He further argued that the notice to appear at Durgapur is outside the Bolpur, under which police station petitioner resides. The CBI should in deference to the sprit of 160 of the Cr.P.C. should conduct investigation at Bolpur, he stated further. 

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju submitted that the CBI is guided by the CBI Manual in conduct of investigations and thus Sections 2 (s), 154 and 156 of the CrPC have no manner of application to the proceedings instituted by the CBI. He further argued that CBI is not bound by the mandate and rigours of Section 160 as the jurisdiction of its Officer at Kolkata extends all over the State of West Bengal. The petitioner can therefore be summoned to any part of the State by the CBI, it was submitted further. 

Case Title: Anubrata Mondal v. Union of India and Ors

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 29

Click Here To Read/Download Order