9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Harassment and use of third-degree methods by the respondents. 2. Restriction of the enquiry timings. 3. Presence of the petitioner's Advocate during interrogation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Harassment and Use of Third-Degree Methods: The petitioner alleged that the Enforcement Directorate officers harassed and tortured individuals to obtain statements under coercion, which is a violation of human rights and contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court referenced the Full Bench decision in *Roshan Beevi v. Joint Secretary to the Govt., Tamil Nadu, Public Dept.*, which held that Customs officials do not have the authority to detain individuals for prolonged periods or use third-degree methods to extract confessions. The court emphasized that any confessional statement obtained under such circumstances should be regarded with grave suspicion. The court also cited the Supreme Court decision in *Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, which highlighted that prolonged custody could vitiate the intrinsic value of a confessional statement. The court concluded that the authorities must act within legal limits and ensure that no third-degree methods are adopted. 2. Restriction of the Enquiry Timings: The petitioner requested that the enquiry be restricted to the hours between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. The court referred to the Division Bench decision in *Anil G. Merchant v. Director of Revenue, Madras*, which stated that neither Section 107 nor Section 108 of the Customs Act restricts the right of Customs Officers to require a person to appear only during stated hours. The court noted that while it is generally expected that interrogations occur during normal office hours, circumstances may necessitate questioning outside these hours. The court emphasized that the time and place of interrogation should be reasonable and fair, consistent with human dignity and comfort, and not inhuman, unreasonable, or unfair. 3. Presence of the Petitioner's Advocate During Interrogation: The petitioner sought permission for his Advocate to be present during the interrogation. The court cited the judgment in *Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise*, where the Supreme Court held that a person called for questioning is not entitled to have a lawyer present during interrogation. The court also referenced the decision in *D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.*, where the Supreme Court permitted the arrestee to meet his lawyer during interrogation but not throughout the interrogation. The court concluded that the petitioner's request for his Advocate to be present at the time of interrogation or near him in the premises could not be granted, as it would impede the investigation process. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the authorities should not overstep their limits and must ensure that no third-degree methods are used. The court emphasized that it is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes and that the investigating agency should decide the venue, timings, and manner of interrogation. The court also noted that the petitioner's request for the presence of an Advocate during interrogation could not be countenanced. The court concluded that the respondents must act in accordance with the law and constitutional mandates, ensuring the petitioner's rights are protected.
|
