Advocate Allowed to Attend Interrogations Under Customs Act for Transparency and Fairness in Proceedings. The Court allowed the petitioners' request for their advocate to be present during their interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, at a ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Advocate Allowed to Attend Interrogations Under Customs Act for Transparency and Fairness in Proceedings.
The Court allowed the petitioners' request for their advocate to be present during their interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, at a visible but non-audible distance. This decision was made to prevent coercive methods during interrogation, despite opposition referencing past judgments disallowing such presence. The interim order granting this relief was upheld, and the writ petition was disposed of, permitting the advocate's presence during future interrogations.
Issues involved: The issue involves the interpretation of the presence of an advocate during the interrogation and recording of statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Judgment Summary:
The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India sought relief for permitting the petitioners' interrogation and recording of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the presence of their advocate at a visible distance, beyond audibility. An interim order granted this relief to the petitioners based on previous cases where similar relief was provided during the pendency of the petition. The petitioners were apprehensive of coercive attempts during interrogation and requested their lawyer to be present within visible but beyond hearing distance. The opposition pointed out previous judgments where the presence of lawyers during interrogation was disallowed. However, considering the special circumstances and previous orders of similar nature, the Court allowed the petitioners' advocate to be present during interrogation at a distance beyond hearing range but within visible range. The decision was based on ensuring no coercive methods were used during the interrogation. The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the advocate was directed to be present whenever the petitioners were called for interrogation. The relief sought in the writ petition was granted by the interim order, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
