Excise investigation procedure limits: venue, counsel presence, and investigator change are regulated only on compelling grounds.

Statutory excise investigations conducted through summons are ordinarily controlled by the investigating authority, including the choice of venue for examination and record production. The text states that the investigation may be held at headquarters where records are available, and a request to shift the inquiry to another location need not be accepted absent compelling justification. It also states that persons summoned for questioning cannot insist on the presence of a lawyer or doctor of their choice during interrogation, since such a condition may impede effective inquiry. Allegations of bias or coercion require prima facie material for writ interference; mere assertions, especially where factual disputes are contested, do not justify changing the investigating team.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the place of excise investigation could be shifted from New Delhi to Kanpur or a nearby place; (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled to insist on interrogation in the presence of a lawyer and a doctor of their choice; (iii) whether the investigation team or the officer conducting the enquiry should be changed on allegations of bias and coercion.

Issue (i): Whether the place of excise investigation could be shifted from New Delhi to Kanpur or a nearby place.

Analysis: The inquiry was being conducted under the statutory power of summons in excise matters. The officers at the headquarters had jurisdiction to investigate and to choose the place where witnesses were called for examination or production of records. The Court found no material showing any compelling or justifiable reason to require the investigation to be held at Kanpur, and noted the practical need to conduct the inquiry at the headquarters where the records were available and where other investigation work could also be carried on.

Conclusion: The request to change the venue of investigation was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to insist on interrogation in the presence of a lawyer and a doctor of their choice.

Analysis: The Court relied on the governing law on tax and excise inquiries and the principle that such investigations would be frustrated if persons summoned for examination were allowed to insist on the presence of counsel or other companions during interrogation. It was held that the authority to conduct effective questioning could not be curtailed in that manner, and that the presence of lawyers outside the room did not alter the legality of the interrogation process.

Conclusion: The claim to be interrogated in the presence of a lawyer and doctor of choice was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the investigation team or the officer conducting the enquiry should be changed on allegations of bias and coercion.

Analysis: The allegations of torture and bias were disputed on affidavit, and the parties themselves requested the Court not to enter into a factual adjudication of those assertions in the writ proceedings. In the absence of any prima facie material establishing gross misuse of power or a compelling reason for interference under Article 226, the Court declined to displace the investigating officers. The existence of pending criminal complaints on the same allegations also weighed against adjudicating the factual dispute in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The prayer to change the investigation team was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the ongoing excise investigation and upheld the respondents' authority to continue the enquiry at New Delhi without judicially imposed conditions on venue, counsel presence, or the composition of the investigating team.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not interfere with a statutory excise investigation or regulate its venue and conduct under Article 226 absent a compelling case of jurisdictional excess, violation of natural justice, unconstitutionality, or proven abuse of power.

---