9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 702 - HC - CustomsSummons issued to attend the office of the DRI - seeking permission for presence of their advocate and videography of the Petitioner s interrogation - HELD THAT - We have perused the Judgment of this Court passed in Ronak Kumar, Jasraj Jain and Chetan Kumar 2022 (2) TMI 470 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT as well as the Judgment passed by this Court in Gagan Jot Singh 2024 (3) TMI 747 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Considering the prayers made in the Petition, we do not find any impediment in permitting the Petitioner s advocate to remain present when the Petitioner is summoned for interrogation by the Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner s advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance. We also permit videography of the said interrogation, however, at the cost of the Petitioner. We make it clear that if the Petitioner s advocate is unable to remain present or if the person video graphing is not present, that will not be a ground for the Petitioner, not to remain present, before the Respondent No. 2 DRI, when summoned. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and is accordingly disposed of.
Issues involved: Petitioner seeks permission for advocate's presence during interrogation and videography at own cost before Respondent No. 2 - DRI.
Summary: The petitioner filed a petition seeking direction for the Respondent No. 2 - DRI to allow the petitioner's advocate to be present during the interrogation, with the advocate being at a visible but not audible distance, and to permit videography of the interrogation at the petitioner's cost. The petitioner cited relevant judgments and expressed readiness to attend the DRI office as summoned. The Respondent No. 2 opposed the petition. The Court reviewed previous judgments and found no hindrance in granting the petitioner's request for the advocate's presence during interrogation, with the advocate at a visible but not audible distance, and allowed videography of the interrogation at the petitioner's expense. The Court clarified that the absence of the advocate or videographer would not excuse the petitioner from attending the interrogation when summoned. The rule was made absolute on the specified terms, and the writ petition was allowed and disposed of, with instructions for all concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of the judgment.
|
