Court dismisses petition for counsel during statement recording under Customs Act; rejects prior notice before arrest.

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that there is no legal provision for the presence of counsel during the recording of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The court also rejected the request for prior notice before arrest, stating that it would impede the statutory powers of customs officers. The petition was deemed without merit and was consequently dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Presence of counsel during recording of the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Prior notice before arrest under the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis

Presence of Counsel During Recording of Statement
The petitioner requested a writ of mandamus to allow the presence of his counsel during the recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court judgment allowing the presence of an advocate within visible distance but beyond hearing range during such interrogations. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Poolpandi & Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise & Others, which held that there is no statutory provision for the presence of counsel during the recording of statements under Section 108. The court emphasized that the purpose of the inquiry under the Customs Act would be frustrated if individuals were allowed to have their counsel present during interrogation. The court concluded that the refusal of counsel's presence does not violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Prior Notice Before Arrest
The petitioner also sought a writ mandating three days' prior notice before any potential arrest under the Customs Act. The court examined the relevant provisions of Section 104 of the Customs Act, which grants customs officers the power to arrest individuals if there is reason to believe they have committed an offense punishable under specified sections of the Act. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Others, which held that no order could be passed requiring prior notice before arrest, as it would interfere with the statutory powers of customs officers. The court highlighted that such a condition is not warranted by law and would obstruct the authority of customs officers. The court concluded that the demand for prior notice before arrest lacks merit.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the petition, stating that there is no legal basis for allowing the presence of counsel during the recording of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Additionally, the court found no merit in the request for prior notice before arrest, as it would interfere with the statutory powers of customs officers. The petition was deemed devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.

---