MANISH Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parties through their Counsel.

(2.) Shri Sethi, learned Sr. Counsel at the outset has drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and his contention is that the witness cannot be called to Mumbai in light of the statutory provisions of law. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Gauhati High Court in the case of M/s. Pusma Investment Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Meghalaya and others, 2010 CrLJ 56.

(3.) On the other hand, it has been argued by learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 before this Court that the petitioner as he is a witness can certainly be called to Mumbai for recording his statement and the notices have been issued in consonance with the statutory provisions as contained under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.