2011 (7) TMI 910 - SC - Indian Laws

Anticipatory bail - interrogation of the respondent - Search and seizure - On July 20, 2006, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short DRI ) Hyderabad, raided the premises of M/s. Hy-Gro Chemicals Pharmatek Private Ltd. and found a shortage of 250 kgs of Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride (DPP HCL) - At the special leave petition stage, the Court had made the direction that interrogation of the respondent can be carried out in accordance with the direction of the High Court - the respondent applied for and got anticipatory bail on the premise that he was not an accused in the case. There was no change in his position or status since the grant of bail till he was summoned to appear before the DRI officers - Held that the distinction sought to be drawn by Mr. Tulsi is illusory and non-existent. The decision in Poolpandi was in cases under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Held that how a case registered under NDPS Act can be said to be a regular criminal case and the cases under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, not as criminal cases - The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's order directing interrogation in the presence of the respondent's advocate.
2. Applicability of constitutional protections under Articles 20(3), 22(1), and 22(2) during interrogation.
3. Relevance and application of the Supreme Court's precedent in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani.
4. Distinction between cases under the NDPS Act and other economic offenses for the presence of an advocate during interrogation.
5. Special considerations due to the respondent's medical condition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Order Directing Interrogation in the Presence of the Respondent's Advocate:
The appeal challenges the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision, which upheld the Metropolitan Sessions Judge's order allowing the respondent's interrogation only in the presence of his advocate. The High Court reasoned that the respondent had apprehensions of third-degree methods being applied by the investigating officers, and thus, the presence of an advocate was necessary to ensure fair interrogation. However, the Supreme Court found that this direction was unsustainable in light of the precedent set in Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise, which did not recognize the right to have an advocate present during interrogation under similar circumstances.

2. Applicability of Constitutional Protections Under Articles 20(3), 22(1), and 22(2) During Interrogation:
The respondent's counsel argued that the protections under Articles 20(3), 22(1), and 22(2) of the Constitution justified the respondent's plea for his lawyer's presence during interrogation. The Supreme Court, however, noted that these protections do not extend to the stage of police interrogation for individuals not formally accused of an offense. The Court referenced the decision in Poolpandi, which clarified that such constitutional protections are not applicable to persons merely summoned for interrogation under economic offenses.

3. Relevance and Application of the Supreme Court's Precedent in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani:
The respondent's counsel heavily relied on the decision in Nandini Satpathy, which suggested that the presence of a lawyer during interrogation might be necessary to prevent self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court observed that subsequent decisions, including Poolpandi, did not follow Nandini Satpathy in this regard. The Court emphasized that the constitutional shield against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) does not extend to the presence of a lawyer during police interrogation.

4. Distinction Between Cases Under the NDPS Act and Other Economic Offenses for the Presence of an Advocate During Interrogation:
The respondent's counsel attempted to distinguish the present case under the NDPS Act from cases under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, arguing that the former is a "regular criminal" case. The Supreme Court rejected this distinction, noting that both the NDPS Act and the economic offenses under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act have stringent provisions and severe penalties. The Court found no basis for treating the NDPS Act differently regarding the presence of an advocate during interrogation.

5. Special Considerations Due to the Respondent's Medical Condition:
The respondent's medical condition, including a history of heart disease and allegations of torture by DRI officials, was a significant factor in the initial grant of anticipatory bail and the modification allowing the presence of an advocate. The Supreme Court acknowledged the respondent's health issues but substituted the High Court's order with a direction that the interrogation may be held within the sight of the respondent's advocate or an authorized person, albeit not within hearing distance, to ensure the respondent's safety without compromising the investigation's integrity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, allowing the appeal to the extent that the respondent's interrogation may be conducted within sight of his advocate or an authorized person, ensuring no consultation during the interrogation. The Court refrained from addressing broader constitutional questions, finding the case covered by the decision in Poolpandi.

← Previous Next →