ORDER T. Vaiphel, J. 1. The legality of the notices issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Headquarters, Meghalaya, Shillong under Section 160/91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requiring the petitioners, who are residing in New Delhi, to appear before him at Shillong for recording their statements in connection with Laban P.S. Case No. 63(11)04 under Section408/415/418/420/423/424/464/468/471/120B, I.P.C. and for production of some documents, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Though the facts pleaded by the petitioners in the writ petition are many, it is not necessary to refer to them in detail as the controversy can be resolved on a narrow compass. The notices are dated 1-11-2007, and dated 28-5-2008 addressed to each of the petitioners, two of which, being illustrative of the other notices, run along the following lines: Office of the Addl. Director General of Police CID(Hqr), Meghalaya, Shillong, Notice under Section 166, Cr.P.C. To Shri Sunil Bhansali Director, Pusma Investment Pvt. Ltd. 71, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002. Ref : Laban P.S. Case No. 63(11)04 under Section408/415/418/420/423/424/464/468/471/120B. I.P.C. You are hereby directed to appear before the undersigned on the 10 day of Dec. 2007 at the office of the Addl. Director General of Police CID (Hqr) Meghalaya, Shillong at 1.0 a.m. positively for recording your statement in connection the above noted case. Further, you are to bring all the relevant documents pertaining to your company with complete books of account, investment registers, return and documents filed with ROC, income tax returns, balance sheet, minute books and bank statements from 1997 till date. You are also to bring your personal income tax returns and bank statements from 1997 till date. Herein fail not. Sd/- (C. Syrti MPS) Investigating Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID HQ, Meghalaya, Shillong Dated Shillong, The 1st Nov., 2007. Office of the Addl. Director General of Police, CID (HQR) Meghalaya, Shillong. Notice under Section 160/91, Cr.P.C. To Shri Sunil Bhansali Director, Pushpa Investment Pvt. Ltd. 71, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002. Ref : Laban P.S. Case No. 63(11)04 under Section408/415/418/420/423/424/464/468/471/120B, I.P.C.. You are expected to appear at the Office of the Additional Director General of Police, CID (HQR) Meghalaya, Shillong on the 10th Dec, 2007 for recording your statement and examining your Company's documents in connection with the above noted case, but you failed to act in accordance with for the same. You are expected to appear at the Office of the Additional Director General of Police, CID (HQR) Meghalaya, Shillong on the 10th Dec, 2007 for recording your statement and examining your Company's documents in connection with the above noted case, but you failed to act in accordance with for the same. Hence, yet again I'm giving you this notice to appear before the undersigned on 23rd June, 2008 at the office mentioned hereinabove @ 11.00 a.m. absolutely. Detail for the case will be explained to you on your present before the investigating officer as date time mentioned above. List of company's documents need to be produced w.e.f. 1998-2 1. Bank statement 2. Book of account 3. Investment Register 4. Income Tax Return 5. Balance Sheet 6. Return and documents filed with ROC Herein fail not. Sd/- (C. Syrti MPS) Dy. Superintendent of Police, CID (Hqr), Meghalaya, Shillong. 3. There is no dispute at the bar that the petitioners No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are residents of Daryaganj, New Delhi while the petitioner No. 3 is a resident of Faridabad, Haryana : they are then obviously not within the limits of Shillong Police Station or within the adjoining police station. The notices reproduced hereinabove indicate that the petitioners have been required to appear before the respondent No. 6 at the C.I.D. Headquarters at Shillong. Before proceeding further, it may be useful to refer to the provisions of Sections 91 and 160, Cr.P.C. hereunder: 91. Summons to produce document or other thing.-- (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer by a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to product it at, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed (a) to affect Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891). or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority. 160. Police Officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.-- (1) Any police officer making m 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 police 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-section (1) at any place other than his residence. 4. Insofar as Section 91 is concerned, there is no difficulty. If a Court or a police officer considers the production of a document or a thing for the purposes of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code, it can require the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, to attend and produce it at the time and place stated in the summons or order. However, the personal attendance of the person, in whose possession or power the document or thing is believed to be, cannot be insisted upon for production of such document or thing : the mere production of such document or thing will obviate his personal attendance. It is, however, with respect to Section 160 that the controversy has cropped up. However, the personal attendance of the person, in whose possession or power the document or thing is believed to be, cannot be insisted upon for production of such document or thing : the mere production of such document or thing will obviate his personal attendance. It is, however, with respect to Section 160 that the controversy has cropped up. Because the personal attendance of the petitioners are considered by the respondent No. 6 to be necessary as they appear to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the criminal case registered at Laban Police Station, Shillong. Mr. V.K. Jindal, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that when the petitioners are admittedly residents of Delhi, the summons for their personal appearance issued by the respondent No. 6 at Shillong is contrary to the provisions of Section 160inasmuch as this provision speak of the persons being summoned to be necessarily within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation or the adjoining police station. According to the learned senior counsel the language of Section 160 is clear and unambiguous and does not leave any room for two views, namely, the persons, even if they are acquainted with the facts and circumstances to be summoned must be residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the police, officer making the investigation or the adjoining police station, and any other interpretation will be doing violence to the plain language of the section. Per contra, Mr. S.P. Manama, the learned Additional Advocate General, submits with equal vehemence that for requisitioning the attendance of a person, who is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary that he should be residing within the limits of the police station of the investigating officer or any adjoining police station. He heavily relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Anirudha S. Bhagat v. Ramnivas Meena 2005 Cri LJ 3346 (DB) in support of his contention. He contends that the petitioners have no case for resisting the summons and are only interested in stalling the investigation of the case to avoid criminal prosecution of heinous crimes. He, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition with heavy costs. 5. He contends that the petitioners have no case for resisting the summons and are only interested in stalling the investigation of the case to avoid criminal prosecution of heinous crimes. He, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition with heavy costs. 5. Section 160, Cr.P.C. authorizes a police officer making an investigation, by order in writing, (i) to require the attendance before himself, (ii) of any person, who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and (iii) who is residing within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining police station. The expression "who being within the limits of his own" read with the words following it, namely, "or any adjoining station" can only mean the person, who is to be summoned, must reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation. So read, it becomes clear that such police officer making the investigation can enforce the attendance of a person acquainted with the facts arid circumstances only if the latter resides within the limits of his own police station or adjoining station. If the person being summoned does not reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation or, at any rate, within the limits of the adjoining police station, it appears that such police officer cannot enforce his attendance even though he may be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case being investigated by him. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 160 says 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. Then, Sub-section (2) of Section 160 further provides that the State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under Sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence. Then, Sub-section (2) of Section 160 further provides that the State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under Sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence. Conjoint reading of both the sub-sections and the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 160 plainly indicate, firstly, that the person to be summoned by the officer making the investigation must reside within the local limits of his own police station or within the adjoining area, secondly, that in the case of a male person under the age of fifteen years or woman, their attendance cannot be enforced at any place other than their residence even if they reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation or within the limits of the adjoining police station and, thirdly, that reasonable expenses of every person other than a male person under the age of fifteen years or woman attending such requisition at any place within the limits of the police station shall have to be paid by the concerned police officer as per rules framed by the State Government in this behalf. If the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that under Section 160, the police officer making the investigation is not disabled from requiring the attendance of a witness residing beyond the local limits of his police station or adjoining station, is accepted, that will amount to ignoring the words "being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station". In my opinion, such interpretation is against all canons of interpretation. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplus age, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute (see Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose AIR 1952 SC 369 ). "In the interpretation of statutes", observed Das Gupta, J. in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. "In the interpretation of statutes", observed Das Gupta, J. in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1170 (at page 1174), "the Courts presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect." The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. When the language of Section 160 is plain and unambiguous, this Court cannot plunge headlong into a discussion of the reason which motivated the Legislature into enacting this provision and took into consideration the hardship and inconvenience being caused to the investigating agency if they are not allowed to enforce the attendance of witnesses residing beyond their police station or adjoining police station. The rule of purposive construction cannot also be invoked in this provision. The correct principle, according to the learned author, G.P. Singh, J., is that after the words have been construed in the context and it is found that the language is capable of bearing only one construction, the rule in Heydon's case ceases to be controlling and gives way to the plain meaning rule. But the rule cannot be used to "the length of applying unnatural meanings to familiar words or of so stretching the language that its former shape is transformed into something, which is not only significantly different but has a name of its own especially when "the language has no evident ambiguity or uncertainty about it. (see Principles of Statutory, Interpretation, 9th Edn. pp. 119-120). In the view that I have taken, the impugned notices are ultra vires the provisions of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and cannot be sustained in law. I have carefully gone through case Anirudha S. Bhagat (2005 Cri LJ 3346) (supra) cited by the learned Additional Advocate General, but, with respect, I find myself unable to agree with view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court for the reasons already stated in the foregoing. 6. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned notices issued by the respondent No. 6 to the petitioners under Section 160, Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed. 6. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned notices issued by the respondent No. 6 to the petitioners under Section 160, Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed. No further notice under Section 160, Cr.P.C. shall be issued by him upon the petitioners hereafter to enforce their attendance from Delhi as witnesses in connection with Laban P.S. Case No. 63(11)04. Insofar as the notice under Section 91, Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is hereby declared that the personal attendance of the petitioners before the respondent No. 6 is not necessary merely for production of the documents required by him in connection with that case. However, there shall be no costs. Petition allowed