No right to counsel during interrogation under foreign exchange summons provisions where statute leaves attendance to investigating discretion.

A person summoned under Section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 has no enforceable right to be accompanied by a lawyer or other chosen representative during interrogation unless the statute expressly confers that right. The provision gives the Enforcement Officer discretion to require attendance in person or through an authorised agent, and the statutory scheme for investigating foreign exchange violations was treated as justifying exclusion of audi alteram partem by necessary implication. The Supreme Court's ruling in Poolpandi was treated as concluding the point, and the claim to legal representation at the summons stage was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person summoned under Section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is entitled, as of right or on principles of natural justice, to be accompanied by a lawyer or other authorised agent during interrogation.

Analysis: Section 40(3) empowers the Enforcement officer to direct whether the summoned person shall attend in person or through an authorised agent, and the language of the provision was treated as admitting of no right in the summoned person to insist on legal assistance or representation of choice. The object and scheme of the Act, aimed at effective investigation into foreign exchange violations and economic offences, were held to justify exclusion of audi alteram partem by necessary implication. The Court treated the Supreme Court's ruling in Poolpandi as concluding the issue and rejected the contention that natural justice must be read into the section so as to confer a right to counsel at interrogation.

Conclusion: The summoned person has no enforceable right to demand the presence of a lawyer or chosen representative during interrogation under Section 40(3); the request may be refused by the authority.

Final Conclusion: The claim for legal representation at the stage of summons and interrogation was rejected, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory summons provision entrusts discretion to the investigating authority and the legislative object requires effective inquiry into economic offences, the rule of audi alteram partem may stand excluded by necessary implication and no right to counsel or chosen representation arises unless the statute expressly confers it.

---