Appellant denied right to lawyer during interrogation under Section 14 of Central Excises and Salt Act.

The appellant, a wholesale dealer in cigarettes, sought the right to have a legal practitioner present during interrogation by Senior Intelligence Officers. The court held that the appellant did not have the right to be accompanied by a lawyer during the inquiry under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Legal principles from relevant cases were considered, and the court clarified that the appellant must be present for examination only if a fresh summons is issued. The court also directed that examinations should be completed before sunset and resumed the next day if needed to address concerns about overnight detention during questioning.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether a wholesale dealer in cigarettes, as an agent of a tobacco company, is entitled to be assisted by a legal practitioner during interrogation by Senior Intelligence Officers of the Anti Evasion Directorate.
2. Interpretation of Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act in relation to summoning individuals for inquiry.
3. Whether the appellant has a right to have a legal practitioner present during interrogation.
4. Comparison of legal principles in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise.
5. Applicability of legal principles from Romesh Chandra Mahta v. State of West Bengal and Hlias v. Collector of Customs, Madras in the present case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a wholesale dealer in cigarettes, sought protection to be assisted by a legal practitioner during interrogation by Senior Intelligence Officers. The appellant contended that he should not be summoned and alternatively requested a writ of mandamus to have a lawyer present during questioning. The single Judge dismissed the petition, leading to the appeal.
2. The appellant was summoned for examination under Section 14 of the Act after a raid on his business premises. The appellant argued that the summons issued by the Senior Intelligence Officers were for investigation, not an inquiry under Section 14. However, the court held that the distinction between investigation and inquiry did not support the appellant's case as the summons were issued for an inquiry under Section 14.
3. The appellant claimed a right to have a legal practitioner present during interrogation, citing Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani. The court distinguished this case from Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise, where the presence of a lawyer was not deemed necessary during an inquiry under the Customs Act. The court concluded that the appellant did not have the right to be accompanied by a legal practitioner during the inquiry under Section 14.
4. Legal principles from Romesh Chandra Mahta v. State of West Bengal and Hlias v. Collector of Customs, Madras were considered. These cases established that individuals questioned by Customs officers are not considered accused, and statements made during such inquiries are not subject to Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The court found these principles applicable to the present case under the Central Excises and Salt Act.
5. The court disposed of the appeal, clarifying that the appellant must be present for examination only if a fresh summons is issued. Additionally, the court directed that examinations should be concluded before sunset and resumed the next day if necessary, to address the appellant's concerns about being detained overnight during questioning.

---