NIA investigative powers override territorial objection; no enforceable right to counsel during examination, and coercion claims failed.

In NIA investigations, the agency's throughout-India powers prevailed over the territorial limitation urged from Section 160 CrPC, so examination of the petitioner at Delhi on notice was valid. No enforceable right to the presence of an advocate was recognised for a person who was not an accused during interrogation, and the constitutional protections available to an accused were held inapplicable. The allegations of illegal detention, coercion, and self-harm were not supported by the record, so no judicial enquiry or compensation was warranted. The petition was dismissed on all substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents were competent to examine the petitioner at Delhi by serving notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the petitioner had a right to be accompanied by an advocate when his statement was recorded. (iii) Whether the petitioner's assertion of being called without valid notice and allegedly coerced amounted to illegal detention warranting judicial enquiry and compensation.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents were competent to examine the petitioner at Delhi by serving notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 160 permits attendance of a person acquainted with the facts of the case, and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 confers throughout-India investigatory powers on NIA officers. The special statute was held to override the general procedural restriction pressed by the petitioner. On the facts, the petitioner was found to be in Delhi and the examination there was arranged for his convenience.

Conclusion: The notice and examination at Delhi were held to be valid, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had a right to be accompanied by an advocate when his statement was recorded.

Analysis: Reliance on earlier observations supporting lawyer presence during interrogation was rejected in light of later Supreme Court authority holding that a person who is not an accused does not have an enforceable right to insist on counsel at the stage of interrogation under such investigative proceedings. The constitutional protections applicable to an accused were held not to extend to the petitioner in the situation presented.

Conclusion: No right to have an advocate present was recognised, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner's assertion of being called without valid notice and allegedly coerced amounted to illegal detention warranting judicial enquiry and compensation.

Analysis: The record, including office registers and surrounding circumstances, was found inconsistent with the allegation of continuous coercion or unlawful confinement. The petitioner was shown to have attended with counsel, to have left for lunch, and the medical and forensic material did not support the claim of attempted self-harm as proof of torture. No basis was found for directing a judicial enquiry or awarding compensation.

Conclusion: The allegations of illegal detention and coercion were rejected, and no judicial enquiry or compensation was ordered.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on all substantive grounds and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In NIA investigations, the agency's throughout-India powers prevail over the territorial limitation urged from Section 160, and a person who is not an accused has no enforceable right to insist on counsel during examination merely because the statement is being recorded in the course of investigation.

---