Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses
Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses. Any police officer making an 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 station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstan The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Any police officer making an 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 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 above the age of sixty years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person or a person with acute illness shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such person resides:
Provided further that if such person is willing to attend at the police station, such person may be permitted so to do.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.
Section 179, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 160 Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 160, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses
-
Shantibhai J Vaghela vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 160, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Commission of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC requires some positive act on the part of the accused as distinguished from silence, inaction or a mere lapse. Allegations of not carrying out a prompt search of missing children, delay in lodging formal complaint with police, and failure to take adequate measures to guard access from ashram to river, which are mere omissions, lapses and negligence, cannot make out a case of culpable homicide. Something more positive than a mere omission, lapse or negligence will have to be present to attract ingredients of Section 304 IPC, and such positive material is conspicuously absent in the FIR. In the absence of any acceptable material disclosing the commission of Section 304 offence, High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction to interdict investigation for that offence, though such power must be exercised sparingly and only when facts demand.
On this section: Power to issue summons to witnesses; Court noted investigating agency issued summons to journalists and media to gather information
-
Narendra K Amin vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 160, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a trial court while granting bail acts on irrelevant materials or takes into account irrelevant materials of substantial nature, the High Court or superior court can cancel such bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without requiring supervening circumstances, as the order granting bail becomes vulnerable on account of the perversity arising from consideration of irrelevant materials. The parameters for granting bail and canceling bail are different. While re-appreciation of evidence should be avoided, consideration of irrelevant materials renders the bail order liable for cancellation.
On this section: Summons issued to appellant who was not cooperating with investigation
-
K. Pramod Reddy vs The Assistant Director-pmla
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 160, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Assistant Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, being duly appointed under the Central Government's Gazette Notification, is a competent authority to issue summons under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. During the preliminary investigation stage, such summons is legal and not arbitrary. A person summoned for investigation is not yet an accused and therefore cannot claim absolute immunity from self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The person is bound to answer questions that do not materially incriminate him in pending or imminent investigations. The court should not intervene in the preliminary investigation stage of PMLA proceedings.
On this section: Section 160(1) relates to police summoning procedures. Section 173 relates to police report filing. Court noted that police filed report under Section 173 CrPC alleging money transaction of Rs. 30 lakhs, which triggered PMLA investigation.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 179
What have the courts held on Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer (29 Oct 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 160, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 179, section 179 BNSS, section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 179 notice and bnss 179 in crpc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer (29 Oct 2020).
What should I read with Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 160 (Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 179, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.