https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211720 A person summoned for interrogation and not in custody has no absolute right to insist on the presence of counsel during questioning, because the protection against self-incrimination does not extend that far. The Court treated Poolpandi as controlling, rejected any distinction between the NDPS Act and customs or foreign exchange statutes for this purpose, and set aside the direction that interrogation occur only in the advocate's presence. However, in light of the respondent's medical condition and the special facts, the Court approved a limited safeguard permitting the interrogation to be visually monitored from a distance or behind a glass partition, without consultation during questioning. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jun 2022 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211720 A person summoned for interrogation and not in custody has no absolute right to insist on the presence of counsel during questioning, because the protection against self-incrimination does not extend that far. The Court treated Poolpandi as controlling, rejected any distinction between the NDPS Act and customs or foreign exchange statutes for this purpose, and set aside the direction that interrogation occur only in the advocate's presence. However, in light of the respondent's medical condition and the special facts, the Court approved a limited safeguard permitting the interrogation to be visually monitored from a distance or behind a glass partition, without consultation during questioning. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211720