<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1984 (2) TMI 229 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72902</link>
    <description>A special investigative regime under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as permitting counsel&#039;s presence during enquiry, including appearance by an advocate, because the statute did not exclude that safeguard. The authority could require attendance, answers and production of relevant documents, but could not compel a person to write statements in his own handwriting. The protection against self-incrimination and a general right to silence were held inapplicable at the pre-accusation investigation stage, although a warning that statements could be used against the person was implied. No enforceable right to copies of investigation statements arose before adjudication or trial, and the passport could be demanded only if relevant to the investigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (2) TMI 229 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72902</link>
      <description>A special investigative regime under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as permitting counsel&#039;s presence during enquiry, including appearance by an advocate, because the statute did not exclude that safeguard. The authority could require attendance, answers and production of relevant documents, but could not compel a person to write statements in his own handwriting. The protection against self-incrimination and a general right to silence were held inapplicable at the pre-accusation investigation stage, although a warning that statements could be used against the person was implied. No enforceable right to copies of investigation statements arose before adjudication or trial, and the passport could be demanded only if relevant to the investigation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>