2018 (4) TMI 1763 - HC - Customs

Interrogation/investigation against petitioner - Co-operation in the investigation - protective order of the nature - HELD THAT - The Petitioner shall not be arrested in connection the investigations under DRI without following the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code. It is however made clear that the Petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. The Petitioner shall respond to the notices/summons issued by the Respondent Authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of protective order in connection with investigations by DRI.
2. Cooperation of the petitioner with the investigation process.
3. Presence of the petitioner during interrogation by DRI officers.
4. Videograph recording of the statement and examination of the petitioner and goods.

Issue 1: Modification of protective order in connection with investigations by DRI
The court addressed the issue of modifying the protective order granted in a previous order. The counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) requested a modification as the affidavit had been filed. The petitioner, through their senior counsel, agreed to cooperate in the investigation but raised concerns regarding the protective order. The senior counsel had no objection to modifying the interim order, and the court passed an order to that effect.

Issue 2: Cooperation of the petitioner with the investigation process
The court directed that the petitioner should not be arrested in connection with the DRI investigations without following the prescribed procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code. However, it was emphasized that the petitioner must cooperate with the investigation and respond to any notices or summons issued by the Respondent Authority. The petitioner was also required to be present before the Respondent as and when required, with prior summons.

Issue 3: Presence of the petitioner during interrogation by DRI officers
The court permitted the advocate of the petitioner to accompany him at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation by DRI officers. This direction was in accordance with a general direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. The court emphasized the importance of the advocate's presence during the interrogation process.

Issue 4: Videograph recording of the statement and examination of the petitioner and goods
In line with a precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex court, the court directed the Department to videograph the recording of the statement and examination of the petitioner as well as goods. The cost of the videography was to be borne by the petitioner, and it was specified that the accused would not be entitled to a copy of the recording unless ordered by the Court. This direction aimed to ensure transparency and accountability in the investigation process.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various crucial issues related to the modification of protective orders, cooperation with investigations, presence during interrogation, and videograph recording in connection with DRI investigations. The court's detailed directives aimed to balance the rights of the petitioner with the requirements of a fair and transparent investigation process.