https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299626 A person questioned during preliminary investigation has no enforceable right to insist on the presence of counsel unless a statute specifically confers that entitlement. The court relied on Article 20(3) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, but held that they do not create an absolute right to lawyer presence at the investigation stage. It also held that Section 30 of the Advocates Act gives a right of audience only before courts, tribunals, or authorities legally entitled to take evidence, not before an investigating officer. The request for counsel's presence was therefore left to the investigator's discretion, and the petition failed. 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 A person questioned during preliminary investigation has no enforceable right to insist on the presence of counsel unless a statute specifically confers that entitlement. The court relied on Article 20(3) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution, but held that they do not create an absolute right to lawyer presence at the investigation stage. It also held that Section 30 of the Advocates Act gives a right of audience only before courts, tribunals, or authorities legally entitled to take evidence, not before an investigating officer. The request for counsel's presence was therefore left to the investigator's discretion, and the petition failed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299626