TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For the State : Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP ORDER (Per : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal. 2. By this petition, the Petitioners seek direction to the Respondent No. 2-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and its officers to permit the presence of their Advocate during the interrogation and recording of statements at visible but not audible distance and for video-graphing the interrogation, the cost of videography to be borne by the Petitioners. 3. Heard Dr. Sujay Kantawala, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Advait Sethana, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pednekar, learned APP for the Responde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 23 March, 2023]; (b) Mayur Chavda s/o Deepakbhai Chavda vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [in Criminal Writ Petition (ST) No. 6697 of 2023, delivered by this Court on 10th April, 2023]; (c) Kamlesh Kumar Mishra s/o Brijabhooshan Mishra vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1313 of 2023, delivered by this Court on 10th April, 2023]; (d) Navin Kumar Jain s/o Kantilal Jain vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [in Criminal Writ Petition (ST) No. 6418 of 2023, delivered by this Court on 10th April, 2023]; (e) Gautam Ghevarchand Jain vs. Union of India and Anr. [in Writ Petition No. 883 of 2023, delivered by this Court on 23 March, 2023]; (f) Deputy Director, DRI, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, Central Excise and Ors. [MANU/SC/0339/1992]; (b) Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal vs. Director General of GST Intelligence [MANU/DE/3757/2019]; (c) Sandeep Jain vs. Additional Director DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) and Anr. [in Review Petition No. 387/2019 in W.P.(C) 9561/2019, delivered by High Court of Delhi on 10th December, 2019]; (d) Amit Joshi vs. Commissioner of Cest & Sr, Cgst (East) & Anr. [in W.P.(CRL) 766 of 2020 & CRL.M.A. 5730 of 2020 D/d on 20.3.2020]; (e) Saurabh Mittal vs. Union of India, Department of Revenue & Ors. [in CRL.M.C. 644 of 2022, D/d. 11.02.2022]; (f) Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors. [MANU/UP/0629/2017]; (g) Enforcement Directorate vs. Partha Chat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e papers with the assistance of learned counsel for the parities. For the purpose of the present case, it is not necessary for us to go into the facts of the case leading to issuance of the summons to the Petitioners under Section 108 of the Act. The limited prayer which has been sought by the Petitioners is the presence of their lawyer at visible and not audible distance during the interrogation and video-graphing of the same at the costs of the Petitioners. This issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as by this Court. In the case of Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India & Ors. (CRL MP.No. 10117 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. (Crl. No. 29 of 2012), the Apex Court has directed that duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No.2 has selectively permitted the presence of lawyers at visible but not audible distance, which is revealed from the summons annexed at Page 157 and 158 of the Petition. The explanation sought to be given that the facts of those cases were materially different do not appeal to us for the reason that the summons in those cases was also issued under Section 108 of the Act for the purpose inquiry. The reason for the inquiry is not material and the department cannot selectively decide to permit the presence of lawyers. 10. As far as the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 is concerned, the decision in the case of Poolpandi (supra), was distinguished by the Apex Court in the case of Birendra Kumar P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India as well as the decision of Coordinate Benches of this Court which have permitted the presence of a lawyer at visible but not audible distance. As indicated above the decision in the case of Poolpandi (supra) was distinguished on facts by the Apex Court in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey (supra). This Court in the case of Mayur Chavda s/o Deepakbhai Chavda vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition (St) No. 6697 of 2023); and Kamlesh Kumar Mishra s/o Brijabhoosh....