Supreme Court Upholds Investigative Authority, Rejects Location Change Appeal

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order directing the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to record the respondent's statement at a different location. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing investigating agencies to conduct inquiries without interference from the courts, noting that such interference could impede investigations into serious allegations. The respondent's argument regarding his health as a basis for the location change was rejected, and the Court held that the respondent must comply with summons issued by the officers. Failure to comply would result in appropriate legal action by the concerned authorities.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against order directing examination and recording of evidence, compliance with summons under Customs Act, challenge to arrest warrant, direction to record statement at different location, interference with investigation process.

Compliance with Summons under Customs Act:
The appeal was against an order directing the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to examine and record the evidence of the respondent at their office in Ludhiana. The respondent had been summoned multiple times under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 for recording his evidence at Ahmedabad due to allegations of misuse of advance license scheme. Despite the summons, the respondent did not comply, leading to initiation of proceedings under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent also failed to comply with the summons issued by the concerned Court, resulting in the issuance of an arrest warrant against him.

Interference with Investigation Process:
The learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to record his statement at Ludhiana. However, the Supreme Court noted that the impugned order interfered with the investigation process, citing a previous judgment that emphasized the importance of allowing investigating agencies to conduct inquiries without undue interference from the courts. The Court held that such interference could impede the investigation into serious allegations.

Direction to Record Statement at Different Location:
The respondent's counsel argued that the direction to record the statement at Ludhiana was based on the poor health of the respondent. However, the Supreme Court was not convinced as no evidence was presented to show that the respondent's health prevented him from traveling from Ludhiana to Ahmedabad. The Court found no justification for the direction based on the respondent's health condition.

Decision and Conclusion:
After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were now free to issue appropriate summons to the respondent for his appearance at an appropriate place. Failure to comply with the summons would allow the concerned officers to proceed in accordance with the law.

---