9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Presence of Counsel 2. Right to Silence and Rule Against Self-Incrimination 3. Compulsion to Make a Written Statement 4. Production of Documents 5. Right to Copies of Statements 6. Production of Passport Analysis: 1. Presence of Counsel The petitioners argued for the presence of counsel during any enquiry or investigation under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, citing the Supreme Court decision in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani AIR 1978 S.C. 1025. The court recognized three facets of this issue: the suspect's right to counsel, the procedural fairness of having counsel present, and the legal practitioner's right to appear. Article 22 of the Constitution guarantees the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner, which includes the presence of counsel during interrogation. The court affirmed this right, stating that the presence of counsel ensures that the suspect is treated humanely and in accordance with the law. The court concluded that the petitioners are entitled to the presence of counsel during the investigation. 2. Right to Silence and Rule Against Self-Incrimination The petitioners claimed the right to silence and protection against self-incrimination. The court noted that Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 161(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide protection against self-incrimination, but these protections are not available until a formal accusation is made. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act does not provide these safeguards, and the court held that the petitioners are not entitled to the rule against self-incrimination. However, the authorities have an implied duty to warn the petitioners that any statement made could be used against them. 3. Compulsion to Make a Written Statement The petitioners argued they could not be compelled to write a statement in their own handwriting. The court agreed, stating that Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act does not require a person to make a written statement. The authorities cannot compel the petitioners to write statements in their own hand; however, the petitioners are free to do so voluntarily. 4. Production of Documents The petitioners contended that they could not be required to produce documents that might be used against them in a trial. The court dismissed this contention, stating that if the protection against self-incrimination is not available, the petitioners are bound to produce documents relevant to the investigation. The duty to produce documents is not affected by the likelihood of their use in a trial. 5. Right to Copies of Statements The petitioners sought copies of any statements made by them. The court denied this request, stating that there is no basis for such a right during the investigation. The right to obtain copies of statements arises only at the stage of departmental adjudication or trial. However, the petitioners are entitled to take notes of their statements or have their counsel do so. 6. Production of Passport In the case of Rajinder Singh Grover, the petitioner argued against producing his passport. The court held that the authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could only require the production of the passport if it is relevant to the investigation. The authorities cannot demand the passport merely to prevent the suspect from leaving the country. The appropriate authorities under the Passport Act or the court that granted bail have the power to make orders regarding the passport. Conclusion: The court upheld the petitioners' right to the presence of counsel during the investigation and ruled that they cannot be compelled to write statements in their own handwriting. Grover cannot be compelled to produce his passport unless it is relevant to the investigation. The petitioners are not entitled to copies of their statements at this stage but can take notes. The petitioners are bound to produce relevant documents and answer questions truthfully, without the benefit of the rule against self-incrimination. The authorities must warn the petitioners that any statement made could be used against them. The impugned orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge were modified accordingly.
|
