1997 (3) TMI 108 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and venue of investigation.
2. Allegations of torture and third-degree methods.
3. Request for presence of lawyers and doctors during interrogation.
4. Requests for changing the investigation team.
5. Compliance with summons and alleged harassment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Venue of Investigation:
The petitioners argued that the investigation under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, should be conducted at Kanpur to avoid inconvenience and harassment. They contended that since the factories and the registered offices are situated in Kanpur, the investigation should not be conducted in New Delhi.

The court held that the respondents, being officers of the Directorate of Anti-Evasion, Central Excise, have the statutory authority to choose the place of investigation. It was noted that the respondents have their headquarters and necessary records in New Delhi, making it a central and well-connected place for conducting the investigation. The court emphasized that the respondents are legally entitled to investigate the matter at Delhi and found no compelling reason to change the venue of the investigation.

2. Allegations of Torture and Third-Degree Methods:
The petitioners alleged that the investigating officers used torture and third-degree methods during the interrogation of Nasir Khan and Shaheed Ali. They claimed that these individuals were beaten and tortured, leading to complaints and medical examinations.

The court refrained from making any observations on the veracity of these allegations, as criminal complaints were already pending before the concerned Magistrates at Jhansi and Kanpur. The court noted that petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also pending for quashing the proceedings launched by Nasir Khan and Shaheed Ali. Therefore, the court did not delve into the allegations of torture.

3. Request for Presence of Lawyers and Doctors During Interrogation:
The petitioners requested that the interrogation be conducted in the presence of lawyers and doctors of their choice to prevent any misuse of power by the investigating officers.

The court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Poolpandi v. Superintendent of Central Excise, held that such a request cannot be permitted as it would frustrate the very purpose of the investigation. The court noted that while the petitioners could be accompanied by their lawyers to the office, the lawyers were not permitted in the interrogation room. This practice was deemed appropriate and not violative of any constitutional rights.

4. Requests for Changing the Investigation Team:
The petitioners sought the removal of Chandra Bhan, respondent No. 2, from the investigation team, alleging bias and physical torture.

The court observed that there were conflicting affidavits regarding the allegations of torture. The court decided not to enter into an objective examination of these allegations, as the petitioners' counsel conceded that the court should refrain from making any observations on this matter. Consequently, the court found no compelling reason to interfere with the composition of the investigation team.

5. Compliance with Summons and Alleged Harassment:
The petitioners contended that the repeated summons and the requirement to appear in New Delhi caused undue harassment and inconvenience. They argued that the investigation could be conducted at a local level to avoid such issues.

The court noted that the petitioners had been avoiding compliance with the summons on various pretexts. The court found that the respondents were justified in requiring the petitioners to appear in New Delhi, as it was necessary for the effective conduct of the investigation. The court emphasized that the petitioners had only appeared once for two days and that repeated adjournments would cause undue harassment to the investigating officers and financial loss to the public exchequer.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions with costs, finding no cause for interference in the investigation being conducted by the respondents. The court upheld the respondents' authority to choose the venue of the investigation and denied the requests for the presence of lawyers and doctors during interrogation, as well as the request to change the investigation team. The court also refrained from making any observations on the allegations of torture, as related criminal complaints were pending before other judicial authorities.