1987 (11) TMI 90 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act can be issued without commencing an inquiry as per Section 124 of the Act.
2. Whether a person summoned under Section 108 is entitled to have a lawyer present during interrogation.
3. Whether a witness summoned under Section 108 can be compelled to write down their own statement.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of whether a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act can be issued without commencing an inquiry under Section 124 of the Act. The court referred to previous decisions and observed that Section 108 allows for an inquiry in connection with the smuggling of goods, and a Customs Officer can summon any person to give evidence. The court emphasized that the purpose of such an inquiry is to ascertain facts related to smuggling, and even individuals not directly involved in smuggling can be summoned under Section 108. The court rejected the argument that a notice under Section 124 must precede a summons under Section 108, highlighting that the Customs authorities were conducting an inquiry to verify statements related to smuggling in the case at hand.

2. The judgment also discussed whether a person summoned under Section 108 is entitled to have a lawyer present during interrogation. The court cited a previous decision that emphasized the secrecy of investigations under Section 108 and the need to maintain confidentiality. It was held that there is no inherent right for a person examined under Section 108 to have a lawyer present during interrogation. The court pointed out that the person being interrogated may be involved in an offense or may simply possess relevant information as a witness, and the investigation process must be kept confidential.

3. Additionally, the judgment addressed the issue of whether a witness summoned under Section 108 can be compelled to write down their own statement. After the initial judgment was delivered, a contention was raised regarding whether a witness can be forced to write their statement. The court clarified that there is no provision in the law compelling a witness to write down their statement. Instead, it is within the authority of the Customs Officer to ask questions, and the answers provided by the witness can be recorded by the Officer. The court affirmed that witnesses are not obligated to write down their statements during the interrogation process.

Overall, the judgment upheld the authority of Customs Officers to conduct inquiries under Section 108 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the purpose of such inquiries in connection with smuggling activities and the need for confidentiality in the investigative process. The court dismissed the appeals and ruled that witnesses summoned under Section 108 are not entitled to have legal representation during interrogation and are not compelled to write down their own statements.