Section 160 CrPC vs Section 179 BNSS — Police Power to Require Attendance of Witnesses

In India, Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024. Police may still require witnesses to attend by written order, but the age at which a man is examined at home falls from sixty-five to sixty, and persons with acute illness are added.

At a glance

What changed

• Sub-section (1), the power — Identical. "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".
• First proviso, age limit — Modified. "above the age of sixty-five years" becomes "above the age of sixty years". "Under the age of fifteen years" is unchanged.
• First proviso, protected classes — Expanded. "or a person with acute illness" is added after "a mentally or physically disabled person".
• First proviso, closing words — Minor edit. "the place in which such male person or woman resides" becomes "the place in which such person resides".
• Second proviso — New. "Provided further that if such person is willing to attend at the police station, such person may be permitted so to do."
• Sub-section (2), expenses — Identical. The State Government may make rules for payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person attending under sub-section (1) at a place other than his residence.

Earlier history. The CrPC proviso itself was widened in 2013: Act 13 of 2013, s.14 (w.e.f. 3 February 2013) substituted the words covering those above sixty-five and mentally or physically disabled persons for the original "under the age of fifteen years or woman".

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 160(1) CrPC, proviso (repealed from 1 July 2024):

Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.

Extract, Section 179(1) BNSS, provisos:

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.

How it works — the steps

1. Who can issue the order. "Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter" — that is, an officer conducting an investigation under Chapter XIII BNSS. The order must be "in writing".
2. Whom it reaches. A person "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". The section is headed "attendance of witnesses"; in Nandini Satpathy the Supreme Court read the corresponding powers under Sections 160 and 161 CrPC to extend to a person who is, or may later become, an accused.
3. The duty. The person "shall attend as so required".
4. The protected classes. A male under fifteen or above sixty, a woman, a mentally or physically disabled person, or a person with acute illness cannot be required to attend anywhere other than where the person resides. The officer must go to them.
5. Voluntary attendance. If a protected person is willing to attend at the police station, the person "may be permitted" to do so — the words give the officer a permission, not the person an obligation.
6. Expenses. Reasonable expenses of attending away from home are payable under State rules (Section 179(2)).
7. What follows. The officer examines the person orally under Section 180 and may record the statement; its use at trial is governed by Section 181. See Section 161 vs Section 180 and Section 162 vs Section 181.

Neighbouring provisions a reader should not confuse with Section 179

• Section 35(3) BNSS (formerly Section 41A CrPC) — a notice of appearance to a person against whom there is a reasonable complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion of a cognizable offence, where arrest is not required. Section 35(4) makes compliance that person's duty.
• Section 94 BNSS (formerly Section 91 CrPC) — a written order to produce a document, electronic communication or other thing; Section 94(2) says a person required merely to produce complies by causing it to be produced.
• Section 195 BNSS (formerly Section 175 CrPC) — summons in an inquest, which now carries a parallel proviso. See the inquest page.

What this means in practice

For a person who receives a notice

• Check that it is in writing, issued by the investigating officer, and relates to a place within his station or an adjoining one.
• If you are a woman, a man under fifteen or over sixty, a person with a mental or physical disability, or acutely ill, you cannot be required to attend anywhere but your residence. You may choose to go to the police station (second proviso), but you cannot be compelled to.
• "Acute illness" is not defined in the BNSS text searched for this page, and the section does not say how it is to be shown.
• Section 208 BNS punishes a person who, being legally bound to attend in obedience to an order of a legally competent public servant, intentionally omits to attend: simple imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both (Section 208(a)). On a reading of the text, a valid Section 179 order within its limits can engage Section 208; an order outside them (for example, requiring a protected person to attend the station) would not create the legal obligation the offence requires. The BNSS First Schedule lists Section 208(a) as non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 174 IPC carried a fine of up to ₹500 for the same conduct.

For the investigating officer

• Issue a written order. For a protected person, record the statement at the residence unless the person has chosen to attend. On a reading of the text, a note that the person attended voluntarily under the second proviso is prudent, because the permission depends on the person being "willing".
• An advocate appearing for a party is not an ordinary witness: In Re: Summoning Advocates requires a Section 132 BSA exception, stated facts, and the written satisfaction of a Superintendent of Police or higher officer before any summons.

For the defence advocate

• A notice that requires a protected person to attend the police station is contrary to the first proviso; Nandini Satpathy treated such a direction as a "flagrant contravention" and directed that the appellant be examined in terms of the proviso.
• A notice to an advocate that does not state the Section 132 exception and the superior officer's recorded satisfaction can be challenged before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, as the Court directed (para 67).

Judgments that still matter

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 608 (1978 INSC 80) — 7 April 1978. A former Chief Minister of Orissa was directed to appear at a vigilance police station for questioning and was prosecuted under Section 179 IPC for refusing to answer. V.R. Krishna Iyer J., for a Bench with Jaswant Singh and V.D. Tulzapurkar JJ., recorded the Court's regret at a senior officer "ignorantly insisting on a woman appearing at the police station in flagrant contravention of the wholesome proviso to Section 160(1)". The Court read Sections 160 and 161 as extending to a person who then was, or might later become, an accused. It quashed the prosecution; its concluding directions, recorded with the appellant's undertaking to answer relevant questions that did not incriminate her, record that the police are to "not summon her to the police station but examine her in terms of the proviso to section 160(1)". The report shows no paragraph numbers. Section 179 BNSS keeps the proviso and adds to it.

Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, [2024] 9 S.C.R. 110 (2024 INSC 668) — 9 September 2024. Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma JJ. (judgment by Trivedi J.) rejected a challenge to Enforcement Directorate summons requiring the appellants' personal appearance in New Delhi, where the appellants had relied on, among other things, the protection for women and the territorial limit in Section 160 CrPC. The Court held that summons and statements in a PMLA inquiry are "fully governed" by that Act (para 15); that Section 50 PMLA makes no distinction between a man and a woman and that there are "glaring inconsistencies" between it and Sections 160/161 CrPC, so Section 50 prevails under Sections 71 and 65 PMLA (para 16); and that the Form V procedure under the 2005 Rules prevails over Section 160 (para 17). The appeals were dismissed (para 23). The judgment is dated after 1 July 2024 but construes Section 160 CrPC; on a reading of the text, its reasoning bears on Section 179 BNSS, which uses the same operative words.

In Re: Summoning Advocates who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues, 2025 INSC 1275 — 31 October 2025. A Section 179 BNSS notice required an advocate who had obtained bail for an accused to appear within three days to disclose "true details of the facts and circumstances" of the case (para 2). A Bench of B.R. Gavai CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria JJ. (judgment by Vinod Chandran J.) held the summons illegal and against Section 132 BSA (para 48). It held that the power to summon "under Section 179 read with Section 175 of the BNSS", when directed against an advocate appearing for a party, "is not an absolute or a blanket power" (para 52). It directed that an investigating officer shall not summon an advocate representing the accused to know the details of the case unless an exception under Section 132 applies; that the summons must specify the facts relied on and carry the recorded written satisfaction of an officer not below Superintendent of Police; and that it is subject to judicial review under Section 528 BNSS (para 67). The notice under challenge was set aside (para 68).

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 is continued under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that clause, a notice to a witness in such an investigation, even if issued after 1 July 2024, is governed by Section 160 CrPC, with its sixty-five-year age limit and without the acute-illness category; investigations begun on or after that date run under Section 179 BNSS. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 160 CrPC? Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 160 CrPC from 1 July 2024. It lets an investigating police officer, by order in writing, require the attendance of a person within the limits of his own or an adjoining police station who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case. The power is unchanged; the protective proviso is widened.

Who cannot be required to come to the police station under Section 179 BNSS? Under the first proviso to Section 179(1) BNSS, a male person under fifteen or above sixty years, a woman, a mentally or physically disabled person, or a person with acute illness shall not be required to attend at any place other than where the person resides. Section 160 CrPC used sixty-five as the upper age and did not mention acute illness.

Can a woman or senior citizen choose to go to the police station anyway? Yes. The second proviso to Section 179(1) BNSS, which is new, says that if such a person is willing to attend at the police station, the person may be permitted to do so. Section 160 CrPC had no such proviso.

Is it an offence to ignore a Section 179 BNSS notice? Section 179(1) says the person "shall attend as so required". Section 208 BNS punishes a person who, being legally bound to attend in obedience to an order from a legally competent public servant, intentionally omits to attend, with simple imprisonment up to one month, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both. On a reading of the text, a valid Section 179 order within its limits can engage Section 208; the offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate under the BNSS First Schedule.

Will I be paid expenses for attending as a witness? Section 179(2) BNSS lets the State Government make rules for the police officer to pay the reasonable expenses of every person attending under Section 179(1) at a place other than his residence. The provision repeats Section 160(2) CrPC; whether you are paid depends on the rules your State has made.

Can the police summon an advocate under Section 179 BNSS to explain a client's case? Not as a matter of course. In In Re: Summoning Advocates (2025 INSC 1275) the Supreme Court held that the power to summon under Sections 175 and 179 BNSS is not an absolute power when directed at an advocate appearing for a party. It directed that an investigating officer shall not summon an advocate representing the accused to know the details of the case unless an exception to Section 132 BSA applies, the facts are specified in the summons, and a Superintendent of Police or higher officer records his satisfaction in writing.

Does Section 160 CrPC or Section 179 BNSS apply to Enforcement Directorate summons? In Abhishek Banerjee v. Directorate of Enforcement ([2024] 9 S.C.R. 110) the Supreme Court held that Section 50 PMLA, not Section 160 CrPC, governs summons in PMLA inquiries, because of glaring inconsistencies between the two and the overriding effect of Sections 65 and 71 PMLA. The judgment construed Section 160 CrPC; on a reading of the text, the same reasoning bears on Section 179 BNSS, which sits in the corresponding chapter of the BNSS (Chapter XIII) and repeats the operative words of Section 160(1) CrPC.

Which law applies to a notice to a witness in an investigation that began before 1 July 2024? Section 531(2)(a) BNSS says an investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 continues under the CrPC as if the BNSS had not come into force. On a reading of that clause, attendance in such an investigation is governed by Section 160 CrPC, including its sixty-five-year age limit, while investigations begun on or after that date run under Section 179 BNSS.

Related

• Section 161 CrPC vs Section 180 BNSS — Examination of Witnesses by Police
• Section 162 CrPC vs Section 181 BNSS — Statements to Police
• Police notice to appear — BNSS 35 vs CrPC 41A
• Section 91 CrPC vs Section 94 BNSS — Summons to Produce Documents
• Arrest of women and senior citizens — BNSS vs CrPC
• CrPC to BNSS master table
• Sections 172–180 IPC vs Sections 206–215 BNS — Contempt of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 35, 94, 179, 180, 195 and 531, and the First Schedule entries for Section 208 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India Code text): Sections 160 and 161, with the Act 13 of 2013 footnote to Section 160.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Section 208. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Section 174.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Gazette text): Section 132.
• Judgments read in full text: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978_3_608_651_EN.md); Abhishek Banerjee v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024_9_110_134_EN.md); In Re: Summoning Advocates (Diary_35619-2025_Judgment.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.