Court Allows Advocate Presence During Statement; Denies Videography; Orders De-sealing of Premises Due to Legal Limits.

The court partially allowed the petition, permitting the petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, to be recorded with his advocate present at a visible but not audible distance. The request for videography was denied. Additionally, the court ordered the de-sealing of the petitioner's premises, noting the absence of legal authority for customs officers to seal immovable property under the Customs Act. The court made the rule absolute in these terms, granting partial relief to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the petitioner seeking relief to record his statement under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 in the presence of his advocate at a visible but not audible distance, and the petitioner seeking de-sealing of his premises.

Recording of Statement under Section 108:
The petitioner sought relief to have his advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during the recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court considered the petitioner's apprehension due to alleged past assaults by Customs Department officers. The court allowed the presence of the advocate at a visible distance but beyond the audible distance to ensure transparency in the inquiry, citing similar cases where this was permitted. The court rejected the prayer for videography but granted the presence of the advocate under the mentioned conditions.

De-sealing of Premises:
Regarding the de-sealing of the petitioner's premises, the court noted that there is no provision in the Customs Act, 1962 authorizing custom officers to seal immovable property. The court explained that under Section 110 and Section 121 of the Customs Act, only goods or movable property can be seized and confiscated, not immovable property. The court emphasized that the seizure under these sections is limited to movable property as defined in the Act. As no power exists to seal immovable property, the court allowed the second prayer made by the petitioner to de-seal his premises.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the court partly allowed the petition, directing that the petitioner's statement under Section 108 should be recorded in the presence of his advocate at a visible but not audible distance. The court rejected the prayer for videography but ordered the removal of the seal affixed to the petitioner's premises by the Respondent No.1. The court found no difficulty in allowing the petition in part and made the rule absolute in the mentioned terms.

---