9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 598 - HC - CustomsPrayer of petitioner to be interrogated in the presence of an Advocate - service of notice u/s 108 of CA - 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 by the Officers of the DRI in accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Sajnani - it is also directed that the proceedings be video-graphed. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Relief claimed in prayer clause (b) - Seeking directions for presence of an advocate during interrogation by DRI officers. 2. Disagreement between petitioner and DRI regarding the relief sought. 3. Reference to judgments of Telangana High Court and Apex Court. 4. Comparison of judgments in similar cases. 5. Consideration of past judgments by the Apex Court. 6. Granting relief for interrogation in presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought directions similar to a judgment by the Apex Court in a previous case for the presence of an advocate during interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The petitioner voluntarily withdrew one relief claimed, while the relief in prayer clause (b) remained contentious. 2. The DRI vehemently opposed the relief sought by the petitioner, citing a decision of the Telangana High Court and an order of the Apex Court that upheld the Telangana High Court's view. The petitioner's counsel, on the other hand, relied on a previous Apex Court decision to support the claim for limited protection during interrogation. 3. The High Court carefully examined past judgments, including one where petitioners sought protection from arrest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which was denied by the Telangana High Court. The Telangana High Court's decision was confirmed in a subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP). 4. The High Court compared various judgments, including those related to the presence of an advocate during interrogation. It referenced a case where the Apex Court directed that counsel could be present within visible but beyond hearing distance during interrogation, emphasizing the need to prevent coercive methods during questioning. 5. Considering the past judgments and the Apex Court's observations, the High Court granted relief to the petitioner for interrogation in the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance. The court referenced specific directions given by the Apex Court in similar cases to support its decision. 6. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition 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 of the Apex Court in a specific case. The court also ordered the proceedings to be video-graphed based on previous directives by the Apex Court in a related matter, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
|
