TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... summoning any of them under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in F. No. DRI/MZU/E/INT-65/2019, without following the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as contained in Section 154 to 157, 167, 172 and other applicable provisions thereof, in absence of any embargo in the Customs Act, 1962 from the application of such provisions of Cr.P.C. (b) To permit the petitioners to have an Advocate visible, but not audible distance during their interrogation in F. No. DRI/MZU/E/INT-65/2019 by the Officers of DRI in accordance with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Sajnani v. Union of India [2017 (345) E.L.T. 323 (S.C.)] in Cril. M.P. No. 10117 of 2012 in WP (Crl.) 29 of 2012, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Learned Senior Counsel, however having taken instructions from his client, make a statement that he is not pressing the relief claimed in prayer clauses (a) and (c). Statement is accepted. 3. As far as relief claimed in prayer clause (b) is concerned, petitioners are seeking direction similar or to the one issued by the Apex Court in Vijay Sajnani v. Union of India (Criminal M.P. No. 10117 of 2012) and Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and Ors [WP (Cri) 389 of 2010] and permit the petitioner to have an Advocate at visible but not audible distance during their interrogation by the Officers of the DRI. 4. Learned Counsel for the DRI vehemently oppose the relief claimed in prayer clause (b). He invited our attention to the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Three judges Bench in case of Poolpandi and Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Others (1992) 3 SCC 259 = 1992 (60) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) and the subsequent judgment in case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Jugal Kishore Samra 2011(270) E.L.T. 147 (S.C.) = (2011) 12 SCC 362 relied on the observations in the later two Bench judgment which had observed thus :- "Taking a cue, therefore, from the direction made in D.K. Basu and having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that the interrogation of the respondent may be held within the sight of his advocate or any other person duly authorized by him. The advocate or the person authorized by the respondent may watch the proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Telangana High Court after making reference to the scheme of CGST Act, 2017 and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and specifically as regards Sections 41 and 41-A held that the protection under the said sections may be available to persons who have committed cognizable and non-bailable offences under the CGST Act, 2017, however, it did not grant any relief against the petitioner, in view of the special circumstances, in view of the said judgment. The decision of the Telangana High Court was confirmed in SLP No. 4430 of 2019. The Learned Counsel of Union of India has also invited our attention to the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Cri) No. 4322 - 4324 of 2019 challenging the judgment of Bombay High Court where the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel would be allowed to be present within visible distance, but beyond hearing range. Inasmuch as, the same orders are being passed in these matters, we dispose of the writ petition by directing that in similar cases, in the event the person(s) summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wish(es) for similar orders, he (they) may apply to the custom authorities concerned and a similar provision may be made for his/their interrogation in the presence of Learned Counsel as indicated hereinabove." 10. In Rajinder Arora v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 389 of 2010), the Department itself has assured that the recording of the statement and examination of the goods will be videographed. The Learned Counsel for....