2015 (9) TMI 1558 - HC - Customs

Court grants petitioner's lawyer presence during interrogation, addressing concerns under Customs Act

The court granted the petitioner's request to be accompanied by his lawyer during interrogation at the DRI Office under Section 108 of the Customs Act, ... Permission to be accompanied by his lawyer when petitioner goes to the DRI Office for interrogation under Section 108 of CA, 1962 - Held that: - The petitioner would be permitted to be accompanied by his counsel to DRI Office when he next goes there for being interrogated under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The counsel accompanying the petitioner would be allowed to be present at the time of interrogation but only within the visible distance but beyond the range of audibility - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:- Petitioner's request to be accompanied by lawyer during interrogation under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962.- Apprehension of third-degree methods by respondent authorities during interrogation.- Comparison of petitioner's situation with his brother's treatment by authorities.- Legal precedent regarding the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the petitioner seeking permission to have his lawyer accompany him to the DRI Office for interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner expressed concerns about the potential use of third-degree methods during the interrogation, citing instances where summons were delayed and his brother faced unfavorable treatment by authorities. The respondent, represented by Mr. Satish Aggarwala, opposed the petitioner's request, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and denying the use of such methods. Mr. Aggarwala referenced a Supreme Court judgment in Poolpandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, asserting that questioning without legal assistance does not violate constitutional rights under Article 21.In response, the petitioner's counsel referred to cases like Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Jugal Kishore Samra and Mahender Kumar Kundiya vs. Union of India, where similar concessions were granted. The court, taking into consideration the petitioner's apprehensions, decided to grant the request, allowing the petitioner to be accompanied by his lawyer during interrogation at the DRI Office. However, the lawyer's presence was restricted to a visible distance and without the ability to hear the interrogation. The court emphasized that the counsel should not demand to listen to any part of the interrogation conducted inside the DRI Office. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, and the matter was resolved based on the conditions set forth by the court.