Right to counsel during statutory interrogation recognised, but advocate must remain a silent spectator and not interrupt questioning.

A person summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 may seek the presence of an advocate during interrogation, because the statutory duty to answer truthfully operates alongside constitutional protection against self-incrimination and the right to legal consultation. The court treated the interrogation as near-custodial in character and accepted that counsel may be present to safeguard those rights. However, counsel cannot actively intervene, object during questioning, or turn the inquiry into an adversarial proceeding; the permissible role is limited to silent presence, with objections to be recorded in writing after interrogation. The impugned order was set aside and legal representation was allowed subject to these limits.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is entitled to have an advocate present during interrogation by Enforcement Directorate officers, and if so, the permissible extent of the advocate's role.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of section 40 requires a summoned person to attend, state the truth, and faces penal consequences for false statements or interruption of judicial proceedings. Read with the constitutional protection against self-incrimination and the right to consult legal practitioner, the provision does not exclude legal representation. The Court held that a suspect undergoing such interrogation stands in a situation of near-custodial interrogation and may claim the presence of counsel. At the same time, permitting counsel to participate actively or raise objections during questioning would convert the inquiry into a quasi-judicial contest and obstruct effective investigation. The proper balance is to allow counsel to be present as a silent spectator, with objections to be recorded in writing after interrogation.

Conclusion: A summoned person under section 40 is entitled to have an advocate present during interrogation on making a written request, but the advocate may only remain present as a silent spectator and not actively intervene.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was held entitled to legal representation during interrogation, subject to the limitations imposed by the Court on the advocate's role.

Ratio Decidendi: In a statutory interrogation that exposes a suspect to compelled answers and potential penal consequences, counsel may be present to safeguard constitutional rights, but may not actively participate unless the governing statute expressly permits such intervention.

---