Court rules against lawyer presence in interrogation without FIR or complaint

The Court upheld the petitioner's challenge to the direction allowing the respondent's lawyer to be present during interrogation, emphasizing the lack of a right to have legal representation during statement recording without a FIR or complaint against the respondent. The Court confirmed the order dated 03.06.2022, ruling that the presence of the advocate at a visible but not audible distance during statement recording was not justified.

---

---

Issues involved:
The core issue raised in the matter is whether the respondent has the right to have his lawyer present at a safe distance during the recording of his statements under Section 50 of PMLA.

Judgment Details:
The petitioner challenged the direction in the order passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge regarding the presence of the lawyer during interrogation. The Court noted the argument that the respondent should have the right to have his lawyer present during the recording of statements. Various judgments were cited by both parties.

In the case of Poolpandi and Others vs. Superintendent, the Court emphasized that the purpose of the enquiry under the Customs Act would be frustrated if the whims of the persons being questioned were allowed to prevail. The Court held that there is no constitutional right to claim the presence of a lawyer during such proceedings.

In Sudhir Gulati vs. Union of India, the Division Bench held that the petitioner could not be compelled to be a witness against himself, but the scope of the offence and enquiry under the Customs Act were different, and the petitioner was not entitled to the assistance of a lawyer during the recording of his statement.

The Court also referred to Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs. State of West Bengal, which discussed the principles when a person stands in the character of an accused.

The respondent's counsel referred to various cases supporting the presence of a lawyer during such proceedings, but the Court found that since there was no FIR or complaint against the respondent, he could not claim the presence of his lawyers as a matter of right.

The Court concluded that the impugned direction allowing the presence of the advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the recording of the statement was not justified in this case. The petition was allowed, and the order dated 03.06.2022 was confirmed.

In summary, the Court upheld the petitioner's challenge to the direction regarding the presence of the lawyer during interrogation, emphasizing the lack of a right to have a lawyer present during the recording of statements in the absence of a FIR or complaint against the respondent.

---