The High Court clarifies that police issuance of a notice under Section 91 CrPC addressed incorrectly—calling a witness an “accused”—is illegal and violates constitutional protections, particularly Article 20(3). The judgment upholds existing law on proper procedure and serves as binding authority within Andhra Pradesh, reaffirming legal limits on investigatory powers.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/28827/2025 of MUNUKURI VEERA REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| CNR | APHC010559392025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Amaravati) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Andhra Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law (Article 20(3)) |
| Questions of Law | Whether issuance of notice under Section 91 CrPC incorrectly designating a person as “accused” is valid and whether it violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a notice under Section 91 CrPC, which addresses a person as an “accused” when he is only a witness, and requests documents, is illegal and in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The court accepted the government’s admission that the notice was issued due to error and clarified that police must proceed in accordance with law. The impugned notice was set aside, but the police were not restrained from continuing lawful investigation. Hence, the judgment clarifies that investigatory procedures must strictly adhere to constitutional and procedural limits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner received a police notice on 15.10.2025 under Section 91 CrPC, addressing him as an accused and requiring production of documents, in connection with Crime No. 264 of 2025 at Arundelpet Police Station. The State admitted the notice was issued erroneously, as the petitioner was only a witness. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court expressly quashes a Section 91 CrPC notice when a person is incorrectly addressed as an accused instead of as a witness.
- Emphasises that such procedural violations, even if subsequently admitted by the police as errors, are sufficient for judicial intervention.
- Reiterates that notices invoking Section 91 CrPC must comply with constitutional protections, notably Article 20(3) (privilege against self-incrimination).
- Affirms that police investigatory powers are subject to strict procedural and constitutional limits.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the petitioner’s submission that being addressed as an accused and asked to produce documents under Section 91 CrPC was illegal and violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
- The State’s counsel admitted the notice was issued due to an inadvertent error: the petitioner was a witness, not an accused, and there was a typographical mistake in citing the provision.
- The court held that such an error rendered the notice illegal and justified judicial intervention to set it aside.
- However, the judgment did not prevent lawful investigation by the police, clarifying the limited scope of the judicial order.
- The court did not delve into deeper statutory interpretation, given the State’s concession of error, but made clear the constitutional boundary set by Article 20(3).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The notice was wrongly issued under Section 91 CrPC, addressing the petitioner as an accused.
- It was illegal, without jurisdiction, and violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Respondents (State):
- Admission that the petitioner was not an accused but a witness.
- The erroneous issuance of notice and mis-citation of legal provisions was due to a typographical error.
- Requested the court to pass suitable orders and allow the police to proceed lawfully regarding the ongoing investigation.
Factual Background
The petitioner received a notice from Arundelpet Police Station (dated 15.10.2025) under Section 91 CrPC in connection with Crime No. 264 of 2025. The notice addressed the petitioner as an accused and required him to appear and produce documents. The State admitted before the court that this was a mistake: the petitioner was only a witness and not an accused. The writ petition challenged the legality of the notice and sought its quashing.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 91 CrPC was at issue; the court considered whether a notice under this section could validly compel a witness (wrongly classified as accused) to produce documents.
- Article 20(3) of the Constitution was invoked to safeguard against self-incrimination; the court upheld its application in situations of procedural error where an individual is wrongly addressed as accused.
- The court did not elaborate on the interpretation of these provisions, as the error was admitted, but implied that any investigatory measure contrary to these safeguards is not permitted.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds and clarifies application of Article 20(3) and proper procedure under Section 91 CrPC.