Advocate allowed to remain visible but not audible during Section 108 customs interrogation proceedings

Bombay HC allowed petition seeking advocate's presence during customs interrogation. Following SC precedent in Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India, court permitted petitioner's counsel to remain at visible but not audible distance during Section 108 Customs Act interrogation as aspect of fair investigation. However, HC denied relief for video-graphing the proceedings. Court noted other HC decisions viewing lawyer presence as not matter of right but found them persuasive only, not binding.

---

---

Issues involved:
The petition seeks direction for the presence of the Advocate during interrogation and recording of statements at visible but not audible distance and for video-graphing the interrogation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Presence of Advocate during Interrogation
The Petitioners sought direction for the presence of their Advocate during interrogation at visible but not audible distance and for video-graphing the interrogation. The Petitioners' counsel argued that various decisions of the Apex Court and the High Court have permitted the presence of Advocates during interrogation. The Respondent contended that the presence of lawyers during interrogation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and may only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The Court referred to previous judgments allowing the presence of lawyers at visible but not audible distance during interrogation and held that it is an aspect of fair investigation. The Court granted the petition, allowing the presence of the Petitioners' advocate at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation, emphasizing that the Petitioners must ensure the presence of their lawyer for interrogation.

Issue 2: Video-graphing of Interrogation
The Petitioners also requested video-graphing of the interrogation, but the Court did not find it fit to grant this relief.

Separate Judgment:
The High Court, comprising of REVATI MOHITE DERE AND SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ., made the rule absolute in favor of the Petitioners, permitting the presence of their advocate during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance. The Court emphasized that the Petitioners must ensure the presence of their lawyer during interrogation and that non-availability of the lawyer cannot be a ground to seek exemption from interrogation.

---