Section 160 CrPC - Police Power to Require Attendance of Witnesses

Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowered a police officer conducting an investigation to require certain persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to attend before the investigating officer. This article explains the provision as it stood immediately before the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force.

Pre-BNSS law: This page concerns the CrPC framework applicable before 1 July 2024. The BNSS came into force on 1 July 2024, subject to the notified exception. For proceedings governed by the earlier law, the CrPC provisions and applicable saving or transitional rules should be examined.

What Section 160 CrPC meant

The heading of Section 160 was "Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses." It formed part of Chapter XII of the CrPC dealing with information to the police and their powers to investigate.

In practical terms, the provision permitted an investigating police officer to issue a written order requiring attendance of a person who appeared, from information received or otherwise, to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances under investigation.

Legal provision under Section 160 CrPC

Sub-section (1): A police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII could, by an order in writing, require the attendance before the officer of a person within the limits of the officer's own police station or an adjoining police station if that person appeared to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The person was required to attend as directed.

Protected persons: The proviso restricted where certain persons could be required to attend. A male under fifteen years of age or above sixty-five years of age, a woman, or a mentally or physically disabled person could not be required to attend anywhere other than the place where that person resided.

Sub-section (2): The State Government could make rules providing for payment by the police officer of reasonable expenses of a person attending under sub-section (1) at a place other than the person's residence.

The wider list of protected persons in the proviso resulted from the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

Conditions for requiring attendance

The police officer must be making an investigation under the relevant Chapter of the CrPC.
The person must appear to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
The requirement to attend must be made by an order in writing.
The territorial condition in Section 160(1) must be satisfied: the person must be within the limits of the officer's police station or an adjoining police station.
The statutory protection regarding the place of attendance for protected persons must be respected.

Protection for women, children, senior persons and disabled persons

After the 2013 amendment, the proviso protected a male person under fifteen years, a male person above sixty-five years, a woman, and a mentally or physically disabled person from being required to attend at a place other than the place where that person resided. This was a restriction on the investigating officer's power concerning the place of attendance.

Attendance and police examination

Section 160 dealt with requiring attendance. Examination of persons by police during investigation was separately governed by Section 161 CrPC, while the use and signing of police statements was addressed by Section 162 CrPC. These provisions should therefore be read together when considering a witness's attendance and statement during investigation.

Constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination under Article 20(3), and the statutory protection concerning answers having a tendency to expose a person to a criminal charge, remain relevant to police questioning. The Supreme Court's decision in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani is an important authority on protection against compelled self-incrimination during police interrogation.

What was the consequence of non-attendance?

Under the pre-BNSS framework, intentional non-attendance in obedience to a legally competent public servant's summons, notice, order or proclamation could attract Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provided the statutory ingredients of that offence were established. Mere reference to Section 160 did not dispense with the need to prove the ingredients required by Section 174 IPC.

Section 174 IPC - Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant: In substance, it punished a person who, while legally bound to attend at a specified place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation issued by a legally competent public servant, intentionally omitted to attend or left before lawfully entitled to depart.

For the ordinary form of the offence, the provision prescribed simple imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to Rs. 500, or both. Where the process required attendance in a Court of Justice, the prescribed punishment was simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to Rs. 1,000, or both.

Key points

Section 160 CrPC concerned a police officer's power during investigation to require attendance of persons acquainted with the case.
The order requiring attendance had to be in writing and was subject to territorial limits.
Specified protected persons could be required to attend only at their place of residence.
State rules could provide reasonable expenses for attendance away from residence.
Intentional disobedience could have penal consequences under the then-applicable IPC where all statutory requirements were satisfied.

Legal note: The facts of a particular investigation, the date of the alleged offence or proceeding, applicable saving provisions, State rules, and judicial directions may affect which provision governs a case. This article explains the central statutory position under the CrPC and IPC immediately before implementation of the new criminal laws.