THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9814 OF 2011 Dated: 20.04.2011 Between: Jaswinder Singh Bhatia ..... Petitioner AND 1. Central Bureau of Investigation, rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Unit-I, Lodhi Road, New Delhi., And another. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9814 OF 2011 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notice dated 5.3.2011 issued under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. by the 1st respondent – the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation calling upon the petitioner to appear for the purpose of answering certain questions relating to a case mentioned therein is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The material available on record shows that FIR No.Rc.AC2011/A0001, dated 25.02.2011 was registered under Sections 7, 8 & 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of I.P.C. against one Abhay Kumar Srivatsava, C.M.D., NALCO, and four others alleging criminal conspiracy, abuse of official position by public servant, acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant and etc. While stating that the investigation into the said case is in progress and that it appeared that the petitioner was acquainted with the circumstances of the said case, the impugned notice has been issued for appearance of the petitioner before the 2nd respondent for answering certain questions relating to the case. The petitioner claims that he is working as a Director of M/s. Bhatia Group of Industries, to which the 5th accused is the Chairman- cum-Managing Director. It is contended that since he is only an employee of the said company and not at all concerned with any of the alleged transactions and moreover the FIR was absolutely silent about his role in the alleged transactions, the impugned action of the 2nd respondent in calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for answering certain questions is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. At the outset, it is to be noticed that Section 160 of Cr.P.C., 1973, empowers a police officer making an investigation to require the attendance of any person who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly investigation into a case registered under Prevention of Corruption Act is pending before the 2nd respondent and the appearance of the petitioner has been required stating that the petitioner appeared to have been acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the said case. The 2nd respondent is fully competent to require the attendance of the petitioner under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of the said investigation notwithstanding the fact that that the complaint did not contain any allegation against the petitioner. Hence the impugned notice cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal much less violative of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The allegation that the petitioner was summoned by issuing the impugned notice only to implicate him as an accused is unfounded and on that ground the impugned notice cannot be interfered at this stage. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.04.2011 gbs