TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants petitioner's request for advocate presence during statement recording under Customs Act.</h1> The court allowed the petitioner's request for the presence of his advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the recording of his statement ... Seeking permission of recording his statement under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 in visible but not audible distance of advocate - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner alleges that he has been assaulted by some of the officers of the Customs Department in the past. This allegation of course has been denied by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. But, what remains on record, is clear and it is the apprehension entertained by the Petitioner. It is this apprehension, which is required to be taken care of by us in a best possible manner. The best possible manner to deal with it is to allow presence of the advocate at a visible distance but beyond the audible distance. This will also ensure transparency in the enquiry that Custom Officers propose to make with the Petitioner and this is what has been done by this Court in several similar cases in the past. It is directed that if any statement of the Petitioner is to be recorded in terms of Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, same shall be recorded in the presence of advocate of the Petitioner kept at a visible distance but not audible distance during interrogation. The prayer for videography is however rejected - Appeal allowed in part. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the recording of the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance, and the de-sealing of the petitioner's premises.Recording of Statement under Section 108:The petitioner sought relief in recording his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the presence of his advocate at a visible but not audible distance. The petitioner's counsel argued that there is no provision in the Customs Act authorizing custom officers to seal premises. On the other hand, respondent No.1 contended that the presence of the advocate at a visible distance is not a right for a person involved in gold smuggling and that sealing of premises was done in accordance with the provisions of Section 121 read with Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found the petitioner's first prayer harmless, allowing the presence of the advocate at a visible distance but not audible distance. This decision was based on the petitioner's apprehension of past assault by customs officers, aiming to ensure transparency in the inquiry. The court referred to previous cases where similar permissions were granted, ultimately allowing the presence of the advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the recording of the petitioner's statement.De-sealing of Premises:The court partially allowed the petition, directing that if the petitioner's statement is to be recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, it should be done in the presence of the petitioner's advocate at a visible but not audible distance. The court rejected the prayer for videography and made the rule absolute in the above terms.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
