2023 (5) TMI 1168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal. 2. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks direction to the Respondent No. 1-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and its officers to permit the presence of his Advocate during the interrogation and recording of statements at visible but not audible distance in accordance with the general direction given by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India and Ors. [Crl.M.P. No. 10117 of 2012 in WP (Crl.) No. 29 of 2012] and direction to the Respondent No. 1 to permit the Petitioner to record his voluntary statement in his own handwriting. 3. Heard Ms. Priyanka Lokhande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Advait Sethana, learned counsel for the Respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he officers of the Respondent No. 1 visited the office of the Petitioner and took him to their office at 12:30 p.m. and the Petitioner was made to sit there till 7:30 a.m. on 28th December, 2022 and that their statements were taken forcefully and they were coerced to write on the summons that they do not need advocate's presence for their statement. She would further submit that similar treatment was given to the Petitioner on 10th January, 2023 and 17th January, 2023. She submits that on account of the aforesaid conduct, there is reasonable apprehension that the Petitioner would be coerced to give self-incriminating statements as per the dictates of the Respondent No 1 and contrary to the facts. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [in Criminal Writ Petition No.580 of 2023, delivered by this Court on 3rd March, 2023]; (j) Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain vs. Union of India and Ors. [in Writ Petition No.782 of 2023, delivered by this Court on 23 March, 2023]. 6. Vide various judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court, the presence of the Advocate at visible but not audible distance has been permitted during the interrogation under Section 108 of the Act. Recently, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain vs. Union of India and Ors. in Writ Petition No.782 of 2023, decided on 23rd March, 2023, has permitted the presence of the advocate during the interrogation at visible but not audible distance. The Co-ordinat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....torate vs Partha Chatterjee (supra), followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement vs Satyendra Kumar Jain (CRL.M.C 2869/2022 and CRL.M.A 11846/2022) and held that the allegation against the E.D. that the Advocate of the accused was not allowed to be present at the time of raid is found to be false and the order permitting the presence of lawyer was set aside. 8. The decisions of the other High Courts have taken a view that the presence of lawyer cannot be insisted as a matter of right. However, the decisions have a persuasive value and is not binding upon this Court. We are respectfully bound by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India & Ors. and Birendra Ku....