The section 160 comes under Chapter 12 of Crpc which reads, "Information to the Police and their powers to investigate" thus, it expressly deals with the power of the police to require attendance of the witnesses to enable thorough investigation. (The corresponding section in BNSS is Sec 179). The Section reads as-

160. Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses

160(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 limits 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 above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person] [Substituted for the words "under the age of fifteen years or woman" by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013] shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.

Here, the use of words 'any person' is not synonymous to the heading of the section that expressly mentions 'witnesses' thus making room for some ambiguity. This ambiguity is far reaching in cases where the section namely the words 'any person' is interpreted to include 'accused'. This section is practically used by the police officers often to require attendance of the accused where he may even be arrested consequently.

In contrast to it, Section 41A of Crpc (corresponding to Sec 35(3) BNSS) that reads,
41A. Notice of appearance before police officer:

1. 2[The police officer shall], in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
2. Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.
3. Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.

3[(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.]

It expressly enables the police officers to seek appearance of the accused by issuing a notice under Form No.1 of Second Schedule under the heading 'NOTICE FOR APPEARANCE BY POLICE'. The following subsections to the Section further provide consequences of noncompliance which again eventually leads to arrest of the accused. Can then a parallel be draw between the two Sections ? The answer isn't in affirmative. Where the scope of Section 160 is not as wide as Section 41A as regards restraints on certain age groups, women and those suffering from acute illness and infirmity in the former, any accused irrespective of these can be summoned under the latter.

The most striking difference being the one raised in the case of  Harmandeep Singh vs State of Punjab, wherein the appellants contented that under Sec. 41A it is clear that the person doesn't fall under any of the categories of Section 41 and thus won't be arrested as long as he complies with the notice and ensures his presence every time, but despite ensuring his presence, he can be arrested when sought under Section 160. Another question is whether this is a jurisprudential impropriety on the part of the legislature ? Whether this would amount to infringement of one's fundamental rights under Article 20(3). The answer again isn't in affirmative.

The apex court has recently ruled that 'there is no blanket protection from arrest under Section 41A of Crpc' in Arvind Kejriwal vs CBI 2024. In light of the Arnesh Kumar Guidelines, the picture becomes more clear wherein it was held that at times it is uncertain whether the accused is to be arrested or is merely summoned for an investigation, thus an interplay between the two sections is allowed overcoming the literal dichotomy.

Moreover, in regard to the words 'witnesses' to include accused is concerned, an elaborate interpretation was given by the apex court in the case of Nandini Satpathy vs P.L Dani (1978) which reads:
"We hold that 'any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case' includes an accused person who fills that role because the police suppose him to have committed the crime and must, therefore, be familiar with the facts. The supposition may later prove a fiction but that does not repel the section. Nor does the marginal note 'examination of witnesses by police' clinch the matter. A marginal note clears ambiguity but does not control meaning.

Moreover, the suppositions accused figures functionally as a witness. 'To be a witness', from a functional angle, is to impart knowledge in respect of a relevant fact, and that is precisely the purpose of questioning the accused under S. 161, Cr.P.C. To hold otherwise is to fold up investigative exercise, since questioning suspect is desirable for detection of crime and even protection of the accused."

Thus, to conclude the Section has a wide interpretation and can be used interchangeably with section 41A according to needs and circumstances of the case, but due procedure and guidelines must be followed under Section 41A in order to prevent the violation of one's fundamental rights.