1992 (1) TMI 105 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a person under notice for enquiry under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act can seek assistance of a counsel during interrogation.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the controversy of whether a person under notice for enquiry under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act can have the assistance of a counsel during interrogation. The Court refers to previous rulings, emphasizing that there is no fundamental right for a person summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act to have the presence of a lawyer during examination or interrogation. However, it is suggested that the department should allow the presence of lawyers during interrogation to ensure the voluntary nature of statements obtained. The Court acknowledges a contrary view held by the Bombay and Delhi High Courts, which advocate for the presence of an advocate during interrogation under similar provisions of other acts.

The judgment discusses the Bombay High Court's perspective on the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, highlighting the duty of a person summoned to speak the truth and the potential penalties for providing false information. The Court suggests that the provision allowing a summoned person to be represented by an authorized agent could include an advocate, thus supporting the presence of an advocate during interrogation. Similarly, the Delhi Court's judgment in another case emphasizes the fundamental right to the presence of counsel in investigations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, even in the absence of specific provisions in the Act.

The judgment also considers the argument that if a person charged with an offense and under arrest is entitled to legal aid, the same right should extend to individuals under notice for enquiry under the Customs Act. The Court expresses concerns about delays in the enquiry leading to the destruction of evidence and goods perishing. The Court issues orders allowing individuals under notice to be accompanied by an advocate during interrogation but restricts the advocate from entering the interrogation room. The Assistant Director is designated to conduct the interrogation, with other officers present for assistance but not participating in the questioning.

In conclusion, the judgment refers the matter to a Full Bench for further consideration, allowing parties to request an early hearing date. The Court extends the time for completion of the enquiry and emphasizes the need for a fair and just procedure, especially in cases involving potential deprivation of personal liberty.