Now, the question is whether detention of these three individuals in a specified place for the purpose of investigation would amount to an offence of wrongful confinement. There was a divergence of judicial opinion on the question whether Section 162, Criminal P.C., applied to a person suspected of having committed the crime. All doubt on the point was resolved by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Narayana Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47. It can no longer be disputed that the words "any person" occurring in Section 161, Criminal P.C., which must be read in conjunction with Section 162, Criminal P.C., include any person who may subsequently be accused of the crime. The police officers were fully authorized to require the personal attendance of the suspects during the investigation. The absence of an order in writing as required by Section 160, Criminal P.C., was no doubt an irregularity. It would certainly have justified the failure or refusal of the suspects to obey the order, but it can have no effect when the irregularity was waived by them. At all events it is too trivial to be taken into account. There can be no question that the investigating officers were entitled to summon the suspected no less than others supposed to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
Disobedience of mere verbal order is not punishable.
Equivalent Citation: AIR1940Nag186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Decided On: 30.11.1939