Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses
Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 circumsta The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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 woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
(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 160, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 179 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… However, such a notice, while conducting the 'open enquiry', shall be restricted to facilitate the appellant to clarify regarding his assets and known sources of income. The same cannot be said to be a fishing or roving enquiry. Such a statement cannot be said to be a statement under Section 160 and/or the statement to be recorded during the course of investigation as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a statement even cannot be used against the appellant during the course of trial. Statement of the appellant and the information so received during the course of discrete enquiry shall be only for the …
-
… Law is well settled that F.I.R. is an encyclopedia of the fact and details of the crime are unearthed and unraveled during the course of investigation. 17. In order to dilate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 which reads as follows : > " 160. Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses –(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 …
-
… Law is well settled that F.I.R. is an encyclopedia of the fact and details of the crime are unearthed and unraveled during the course of investigation. 17. In order to dilate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 which reads as follows : > " 160. Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses –(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 …
Questions about Section 160
What have the courts held on Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: 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 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 160, section 160 CRPC, section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 179 (Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 160, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.