2019 (9) TMI 597 - HC - Customs

Permission to petitioner to have an advocate at visible but not audible distance during his interrogation by the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in the case of VIJAY SAJNANI ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR. 2012 (4) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT has directed that during interrogation of the petitioner(s), his/their counsel would be allowed to be present within visible distance, but beyond hearing range. The petitioner would be interrogated in presence of an advocate at a visible, but not audible distance in relation to the interrogation - the proceedings directed to be video-graphed - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Relief claimed in prayer clause (b) seeking directions for presence of an advocate during interrogation by DRI officers.
- Conflict between petitioner's reliance on Apex Court judgment and DRI's opposition citing Telangana High Court's decision.
- Comparison of judgments from different High Courts and Apex Court regarding pre-arrest protection.
- Application of previous judgments in similar cases for presence of counsel during interrogation.
- Consideration of video-graphing proceedings during interrogation.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this judgment involves the relief sought by the petitioner in prayer clause (b) to have an advocate present during interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers. The petitioner relied on a previous Apex Court judgment in a similar matter, requesting a similar provision for his interrogation. The DRI opposed this relief, citing a decision by the Telangana High Court and an Apex Court order, which upheld the High Court's view. The petitioner's counsel argued that limited protection during interrogation was already granted by the Apex Court in a previous case.

The High Court extensively analyzed the judgments presented before it, including the case of Birendra Pandey Vs. Union of India, where the Apex Court allowed the presence of a lawyer within visible but beyond hearing distance during interrogation to prevent coercive methods. The Court also considered the Telangana High Court's decision regarding summons issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which denied relief to the petitioners based on the specific circumstances and legal provisions.

In light of these judgments and the conflicting views presented, the High Court referred to the Apex Court's observations in Vijay Sajnani Vs. Union of India and Rajinder Arora Vs. Union of India, emphasizing the presence of an advocate during interrogation within visible but not audible distance. The Court also took into account the Rajasthan High Court judgment in Bhag Singh Vs. Union of India, highlighting the importance of adhering to binding orders from the Apex Court.

Ultimately, the High Court granted the relief sought by the petitioner in prayer clause (b) and directed that the petitioner be interrogated in the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance, in accordance with the directions given by the Apex Court. Additionally, the Court ordered the proceedings to be video-graphed, aligning with the Apex Court's previous directive in a related case. The writ petition was disposed of based on these findings and directions.