Court Allows Lawyer Presence During Interrogation; Denies Handwritten Statement Request for Fair Investigation Balance.

The HC ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the presence of their advocate during interrogation by the DRI at a visible but not audible distance, aligning with recent judgments supporting fair investigation practices. However, the court denied the petitioner's request to record their voluntary statement in their own handwriting. The court emphasized the necessity of legal representation during interrogation while maintaining the investigation's integrity, and stated that the absence of the lawyer cannot justify exemption from interrogation. The writ petition was disposed of with these considerations.

---

---

Issues involved:
The petitioner sought direction for the presence of their advocate during interrogation and recording of statements, and permission to record voluntary statement in own handwriting.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Presence of Advocate during Interrogation:
The petitioner requested the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to allow the presence of their advocate during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance. The petitioner's advocate argued that the refusal to permit the advocate's presence could lead to coerced self-incriminating statements. The respondent contended that the presence of an advocate during interrogation cannot be demanded as a matter of right, citing various judicial pronouncements. However, recent judgments have allowed the presence of lawyers at visible but not audible distance during interrogation. The court, considering fair investigation, permitted the presence of the advocate during the petitioner's interrogation.

Issue 2 - Recording of Voluntary Statement:
The petitioner also sought direction to record their voluntary statement in their own handwriting. The court did not find it appropriate to allow this request but emphasized that the petitioner must ensure the presence of their lawyer during interrogation. The court clarified that the non-availability of the lawyer cannot be a reason to seek exemption from interrogation when called. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, allowing the presence of the advocate during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance.

This judgment highlights the importance of fair investigation practices and the role of legal representation during interrogation processes, ensuring the protection of the petitioner's rights while maintaining the integrity of the investigation.

---