9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1168 - HC - CustomsSeeking direction to the Respondent No. 1-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and its officers to permit the presence of his Advocate during the interrogation and recording of statements at visible but not audible distance - seeking permission to record his voluntary statement in his own handwriting - HELD THAT - The Calcutta High Court in the case of ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE VERSUS PARTHA CHATTERJEE 2022 (7) TMI 1412 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN 2022 (6) TMI 382 - DELHI HIGH COURT and held that the allegation against the E.D. that the Advocate of the accused was not allowed to be present at the time of raid is found to be false and the order permitting the presence of lawyer was set aside. The decisions of the other High Courts have taken a view that the presence of lawyer cannot be insisted as a matter of right. However, the decisions have a persuasive value and is not binding upon this Court. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of V VIJAY SAJNANI ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR. 2012 (4) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT as well as the decision of Coordinate Benches of this Court, are binding which have permitted the presence of a lawyer at visible but not audible distance. Thus, the direction which has been sought by the Petitioner as regards the presence of the lawyer at visible but not audible distance is an aspect of fair investigation and we do not find any reason to take a different view from the view taken by the Coordinate Benches of this Court - petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The petitioner sought direction for the presence of their advocate during interrogation and recording of statements, and permission to record voluntary statement in own handwriting. Summary: Issue 1 - Presence of Advocate during Interrogation: The petitioner requested the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to allow the presence of their advocate during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance. The petitioner's advocate argued that the refusal to permit the advocate's presence could lead to coerced self-incriminating statements. The respondent contended that the presence of an advocate during interrogation cannot be demanded as a matter of right, citing various judicial pronouncements. However, recent judgments have allowed the presence of lawyers at visible but not audible distance during interrogation. The court, considering fair investigation, permitted the presence of the advocate during the petitioner's interrogation. Issue 2 - Recording of Voluntary Statement: The petitioner also sought direction to record their voluntary statement in their own handwriting. The court did not find it appropriate to allow this request but emphasized that the petitioner must ensure the presence of their lawyer during interrogation. The court clarified that the non-availability of the lawyer cannot be a reason to seek exemption from interrogation when called. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioner, allowing the presence of the advocate during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance. This judgment highlights the importance of fair investigation practices and the role of legal representation during interrogation processes, ensuring the protection of the petitioner's rights while maintaining the integrity of the investigation.
|
