2022 (2) TMI 470 - HC - Customs

Court orders clear notice 72 hrs prior to appearance, advocates' presence, video recording, office hours.

Ronak Kumar, Jasraj Jain and Chetan Kumar Versus Manish Roy Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai and Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance, New Delhi

The Court directed the Respondents to issue a clear notice 72 hours before fixing the date for the petitioners' appearance in response to the summonses ... Direction to issue Summons to the Petitioners for their appearance to record their voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - permission to allow the presence of their Advocate at visible but not audible distance - seeking permission for videography of their interrogation at the cost of the Petitioners - HELD THAT:- In case of RAJURAM PUROHIT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2018 (1) TMI 1528 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], this Court has permitted the presence of the Advocate at visible but not audible distance and also the videography. We are respectfully bound by the view taken by this Court in case of Rajuram Purohit following principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in judgment of Om Prakash Vs. Union of India [2011 (9) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of the fact that the Respondents have already issued Summonses annexed at Exh. ‘A’ to ‘F’ of the Petition, the Respondents are not required to issue fresh summons upon the Petitioners - Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners who are already issued summonses would appear before the Respondent No. 3 on the date as may be assigned by the Respondent No. 3 alongwith their advocate for recording their voluntary statement at visible but not audible distance and would record the interrogation by videography at the cost of the Petitioners. The statement is accepted - The Respondents are directed to issue 72 hours clear notice to the Petitioners before fixing the date on which they require their presence in response to the summonses already issued to the Petitioners. The Petitioners shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners are allowed to remain present in presence of their advocates at visible but not audible distance. Videography is also permitted to record their interrogation at the cost of the Petitioners - the interrogation and the recording of statement of the Petitioners shall be done during the office hours - petition allowed. Issues:- Petition seeking direction for issuance of Summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962- Interim Order by Supreme Court preventing coercive action- Presence of Advocates during investigation- Petition filed before Supreme Court for similar reliefs- Direction for issuance of Summons for recording voluntary statement- Permission for presence of Advocate at visible but not audible distance- Videography of interrogation at the cost of Petitioners- Compliance with principles of law laid down by the Supreme CourtAnalysis:1. The petitioners sought a direction for the Respondent No. 1 to issue Summons for their appearance under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing the presence of their Advocate at visible but not audible distance and videography of their interrogation at their cost.2. The petitioners had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking similar reliefs, and an interim Order was issued preventing coercive steps against them, which was still in force.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment allowing the presence of Advocates during investigation at visible but not audible distance, citing previous orders by the High Court and the Supreme Court granting such permission.4. The Respondents argued that since a writ petition was already pending before the Supreme Court for similar reliefs, there was no cause of action for the current petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.5. The Court, following the precedent set in a previous case, directed the Respondents to issue a clear notice 72 hours before fixing the date for the petitioners' appearance in response to the summonses already issued, allowing the presence of Advocates at visible but not audible distance and permitting videography of the interrogation at the cost of the petitioners.6. The interrogation and recording of statements were to be conducted during office hours, and the writ petition was allowed in the specified terms, with the rule made absolute and no order as to costs.