Court allows petitioner to be questioned under Customs Act, clarifies on legal assistance

The court partially allowed the petition, determining that the petitioner must appear before the concerned officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act and answer questions that do not tend to incriminate him. The court clarified that the petitioner was accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India but emphasized the distinction between the offence under the FIR and the Customs Act enquiry. Additionally, the court rejected the petitioner's request to have his lawyer present during the recording of his statement, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to legal assistance in that context.

---

---

Issues:
1. Violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India by the issuance of summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his lawyer present during the recording of his statement pursuant to the impugned summons.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the challenge to the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the summons were violative of Article 20(3) as he was being falsely implicated in a case related to smuggling of goods by certain exporters. The respondents argued that the petitioner was not accused of any offence and that the summons were issued in the course of an enquiry under the Customs Act, not related to the FIR. The court analyzed previous judgments on Article 20(3) and held that the petitioner was accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) but clarified that the scope of the offence under the FIR and the Customs Act enquiry were different. The court concluded that the petitioner must appear before the concerned officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act and answer questions that do not tend to incriminate him, thereby partly allowing the petition.

2. The petitioner also sought directions for permitting the presence of his lawyer at the time of recording his statement pursuant to the impugned summons. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment and rejected the contention that the petitioner was entitled to have his lawyer present during the recording of his statement under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the assistance of a lawyer at the time of recording his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that he must answer questions that do not tend to incriminate him. The court partly allowed the petition, declaring the petitioner as a person accused of an offence under Article 20(3) but directing him to appear before the concerned officer and answer questions accordingly.

---