ANIRUDHA S BHAGAT Vs. RAMNIVAS MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith. Perused the record.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the summonses issued to the petitioner by the investigating Agency on two grounds, namely that the Investigating Agency has no Jurisdiction or power to issue summons to a person residing or carrying on business beyond the territorial limits of the police station to which the investigating Agency is attached and secondly that summons for production of document can only be issued under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under section 160 thereof. On both the counts according to the petitioner, the summonses issued under section 160 of the Code, which are essentially issued merely for production of document in the nature of original designs of the collapse bridge, are bad in law and need to be quashed.

(3.) The facts relevant for the decision are that there existed a bridge over damanganga river in the Union Territory of Daman which was constructed in the year 1983. Some repairs were carried out to the said bridge in the year 2001, however, the bridge collapsed an 28-8-2003 taking the lives of about 25-30 people. The F. I. R. came to be lodged by the Circle Police Inspector, Daman on 28-8-2003 under sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property act, 1984 as well as section 304a, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is a Chairman and Managing director of a company known as M/s quadricon Pvt. Ltd. and the said company is engaged in the business of construction of bridge through patented construction system in quadricon. The said bridge was also constructed by the said company.