Venue of statutory examination lies with investigators; judicial directions altering summons location in customs inquiry were set aside.

In a customs investigation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the venue, timing and manner of examination remain within the investigating agency's discretion. Courts should not ordinarily direct that a person be examined at a particular place or otherwise control the course of investigation unless the process violates law. A blanket judicial direction requiring examination at Ludhiana was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. The revenue authorities were left free to issue summons requiring appearance at an appropriate place and to proceed according to law in case of non-compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could direct the revenue authorities to record the respondent's statement at Ludhiana instead of the place fixed by the investigating agency under the summons issued for examination.

Analysis: The summons were issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in connection with a customs investigation. The Court held that fixing the venue, timing, and manner of examination lies within the domain of the investigating agency and that courts should not supervise or control the course of investigation unless the process transgresses law. Reliance was placed on the principle that a blanket judicial direction altering the venue of interrogation interferes with statutory functions and undermines the enquiry.

Conclusion: The direction requiring examination at Ludhiana was unsustainable and was set aside. The revenue were left free to issue summons requiring appearance at an appropriate place and to proceed according to law on non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts should not ordinarily direct the venue or manner of examination in a statutory investigation, as such matters fall within the investigative authority's discretion unless there is violation of law.

---