1992 (1) TMI 363 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petition for recording the petitioner's statement at Chandigarh.
2. Validity of the summons issued by the respondent-authorities.
3. Allegations of harassment, false implication, and torture against the petitioner.
4. Right of the petitioner to be represented by an Advocate during the recording of his statement.
5. Medical condition of the petitioner and the difficulty in undertaking a journey to Bombay.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioner sought an order to record his statement at Chandigarh, citing his permanent residency there. The respondent-authorities argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction as the investigation was ongoing in Bombay. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's residency and jurisdiction, emphasizing the need to prevent harassment and inconvenience to citizens. Ultimately, the Court ruled that as the petitioner was summoned from Chandigarh, it had the authority to intervene to protect the petitioner from unnecessary hardship.

2. Validity of Summons:
The petitioner contested the validity of the summons, claiming they were vague and issued with mala fide intentions to extract a confessional statement. The respondents asserted that the petitioner was named in statements related to gold smuggling and had a history of involvement in such activities. The Court noted the petitioner's medical condition and the impracticality of traveling to Bombay. It criticized the respondents for not arranging travel expenses or providing assurances. The Court found the summons unreasonable and directed the petitioner to be examined at Jalandhar, with the option to do so in Chandigarh for convenience.

3. Allegations of Harassment and False Implication:
The petitioner alleged harassment, false implication, and torture by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The respondents denied the allegations, stating the petitioner had been involved in previous smuggling cases. The Court considered the petitioner's medical certificates and previous detention, expressing concern over potential harassment due to unreasonable summoning practices. It emphasized the need to protect citizens from undue hardship and directed the authorities to ensure the petitioner's well-being during the investigation.

4. Right to Legal Representation:
The petitioner requested the assistance of an Advocate during the recording of his statement, which the respondents opposed, citing lack of office in Chandigarh. The Court recognized the petitioner's right to legal representation and allowed the presence of an Advocate during the statement recording. However, the Advocate was instructed not to interfere with the process.

5. Medical Condition and Travel Difficulty:
The petitioner's medical condition, including cervical spine issues and hypertension, made traveling to Bombay challenging. The Court accepted the medical evidence and highlighted the petitioner's inability to undertake a long journey. It criticized the lack of consideration by the authorities for the petitioner's health and financial burden. The Court directed the authorities to bear the petitioner's travel expenses and accommodate his medical needs during the investigation.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the petitioner's request to have his statement recorded at a location convenient for him, ensuring legal representation and addressing concerns of harassment and inconvenience during the investigation process.