2018 (2) TMI 2072

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d sought time for instructions as to whether the Customs Department could agree to the presence of the counsel for the Petitioner within visible range but outside audible range while the Petitioner is questioned by its officers. 3. Today, Mr. Aggarwala relied on a judgment dated 31st May 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(Crl.) 1673/2017 (Siddharth Jain v. UOI) where a similar request was declined. He has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise (1992) 3 SCC 259. 4. Ms. Anjali Manish, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, has pointed out that the SLP (Crl.) No.4975/2017 filed against the very order of the learned Single Judge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Supreme Court in W.P.(Crl.) 28 of 2012) and Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424 to urge that in the present case, the Court should permit the presence of counsel within range of sight but outside of audible range while the Petitioner is being questioned by the Customs Department. Ms. Manish has also drawn the attention of the Court to Section 41-D Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the right of an arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation. 6. The special circumstances Ms. Manish points out, are that the Petitioner was arrested way back on 21st September 2017. His statement was recorded by the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch ('SIIB') on several dates prior thereto i.e. on 22n....