https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299626 The court dismissed the petition, allowing the investigating officer discretion to decide on the presence of a lawyer during the petitioners' interrogation. While the court did not mandate the presence of a lawyer, it suggested it as a measure to prevent adverse criticism of confessions obtained during the interrogation process. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality in the investigation process until a charge-sheet is filed and clarified that advocates do not have an automatic right to represent clients before investigating officers under the Advocates Act, 1961. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Dec 2021 14:37:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299626 The court dismissed the petition, allowing the investigating officer discretion to decide on the presence of a lawyer during the petitioners' interrogation. While the court did not mandate the presence of a lawyer, it suggested it as a measure to prevent adverse criticism of confessions obtained during the interrogation process. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality in the investigation process until a charge-sheet is filed and clarified that advocates do not have an automatic right to represent clients before investigating officers under the Advocates Act, 1961. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299626