JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the legality of a notice issued u/s 160, Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the "Code of Criminal Procedure") requiring the production of a truck, its driver and related documents. Such notice has been issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Laxmisagar Police Station, in connection with Laxmisagar P.S. Case No. 180, dated 13.12.1996 registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338, Indian Penal Code (in short, the "I.P.C."). The said notice under Annexure-2 is addressed to the Petitioner in his address at Professor Para, Cuttack. 2. It is contended by the Petitioner that Professor Para in Cuttack Town does not come within the jurisdiction of Laxmisagar Police Station, or within the jurisdiction of any adjacent police station and as such, the notice u/s 160, Code of Criminal Procedure to him is unwarranted. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that since violation of any such notice may amount to commission of an offence u/s 174, I.P.C., the Petitioner had to approach this Court for suitable direction. Section 160, Code of Criminal Procedure, reads a 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 limit 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-suction (1) at any place other than his residence. 3. A perusal of the aforesaid provision 'clearly indicates that a police officer can require the attendance of any person being within the limits of his own or in adjoining station. Since noncompliance with the direction u/s 160 may amount to an offence punishable u/s 174, I.P.C., the provisions contained in Section 160, Code of Criminal Procedure. are to be construed strictly. Since noncompliance with the direction u/s 160 may amount to an offence punishable u/s 174, I.P.C., the provisions contained in Section 160, Code of Criminal Procedure. are to be construed strictly. It is quite evident that Section 160 does not empower a police officer to require the presence of any person unless such person is within the limits of the police station concerned or of any adjoining police station. 4. In the decision reported in Krishan Bans Bhadur and Another Vs. The state of Himachal Pradesh it was held that where notice was issued against a person not within the jurisdiction of the police station, nor the adjoining police station, noncompliance- with such order does not amount to commission of any offence, if any order is passed u/s 160. It is evident that if notice u/s 160, Code of Criminal Procedure is issued against any person not within the limits of a police station or of an adjoining police station, such notice can be said to be without jurisdiction and the notice is free to ignore such illegal notice. 5. The learned Counsel for the State, however, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in P. Sirajuddin, etc. Vs. State of Madras, etc., and contended that the police have the authority u/s 160 to require the presence of any person for examination. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court only discussed in general the various powers available to an Investigating Officer while investigating into an offence and in that context it was stated in a general way that an Investigating Officer has the authority to require the presence of any person for examination. The meaning of the expression"... of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station..." was not under consideration in the said case and from the general observations made in the Supreme Court decision, it cannot be said that the police officer had the authority to require the presence of any person by issuing notice u/s 160 even though such person is not within the jurisdiction of the police station, or within the jurisdiction of the adjoining police station. 6. In the present case, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Professor Para in Cuttack Town is not within the jurisdiction of Laxmisagar Police Station of Bhubaneswar, nor is it within the jurisdiction of any adjoining police station. 6. In the present case, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Professor Para in Cuttack Town is not within the jurisdiction of Laxmisagar Police Station of Bhubaneswar, nor is it within the jurisdiction of any adjoining police station. The notice u/s 160, Code of Criminal Procedure is thus ex facie illegal and the Petitioner need not comply with such notice. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed