Right to counsel during PMLA interrogation allowed at a non-intrusive distance; re-recording of statement refused.

A person summoned under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be permitted to have an advocate present during interrogation in a non-intrusive manner, with the advocate sitting at a visible distance and beyond hearing distance, where this is needed to guard against coercion or forced statements and does not obstruct the enquiry. The earlier statement recorded from the summoned person was not ordered to be re-recorded merely because it had been subsequently retracted; its evidentiary value and veracity were left to be determined in accordance with law at the appropriate stage. The petition succeeded only to the extent of permitting counsel's presence during further interrogation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person summoned under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to have an advocate present during interrogation, subject to the advocate sitting at a visible distance but beyond hearing distance. (ii) Whether the statement already recorded from the petitioner under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 should be re-recorded in the presence of an advocate.

Issue (i): Whether a person summoned under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to have an advocate present during interrogation, subject to the advocate sitting at a visible distance but beyond hearing distance.

Analysis: The power under section 50 enables the authorities to summon persons, require them to give evidence or produce records, and treats proceedings under sub-sections (2) and (3) as judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that this statutory setting does not exclude the assistance of an advocate where the person summoned seeks protection against coercion, harassment or forced statements. Relying on constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination and the right to personal liberty, the Court accepted that legal representation may be permitted so long as it does not obstruct the enquiry.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to have his chosen advocate present during interrogation, but only at a visible distance and beyond hearing distance.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement already recorded from the petitioner under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 should be re-recorded in the presence of an advocate.

Analysis: The petitioner had already retracted the statement by a subsequent letter. In that situation, the Court held that the veracity and evidentiary effect of the earlier statement must be decided in accordance with law at the appropriate stage, and there was no basis to compel a fresh recording of the statement merely on that ground.

Conclusion: The request to re-record the statement in the presence of an advocate was declined.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded only to the extent of securing the petitioner's right to be accompanied by counsel during further interrogation, while the prayer for re-recording of the earlier statement was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute empowers investigative summoning and examination as a judicial proceeding, the person summoned may be allowed an advocate to be present in a non-intrusive manner to safeguard against coercion, but the court will not direct re-recording of a statement already retracted merely on that basis.

---