9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities. The inquiry shall be conducted uptill 5:00 p.m. and if the same is required to be continued, the same may be continued on a day to day basis during office hours only. The same shall be conducted in the presence of a lady officer of the DRI. Counsel for the petitioner shall be permitted to accompany her - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - W.P.(Crl) 3697/2016 - - - Dated:- 24-12-2016 - Vipin Sanghi, J. For the Petitioner : Anjali J Manish, Priyadarshi Manish For the Respondent : Satish Aggarwala, Amish Aggarwala ORDER Crl. M.A. No. 20195/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 3697/2016 1. Issue notice. Notice is acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is in progress. 5. Respondent no.3, namely, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI issued a summons requiring the petitioner to appear along with the partnership deed and other documents in respect of import of leggings made by Lifa Enterprises. Summons were issued to the petitioner returnable on 30.09.2016. However, the petitioner did not appear and Mr. Sanjay Puri, sent a response giving reasons for the petitioner s non-appearance. Yet again, summons were issued to the petitioner on 10.10.2016 requiring her to appear on 21.10.2016. A response was sent by Mr. Sanjay Puri once again setting out the reason that the petitioner s mother was on her death bed, and the petitioner was out of station. 6. Notice dated 02.11.2016 was issued summ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jority shareholder in the two firms. As to what is her defence is a matter that she has to disclose to the concerned authorities in response to the summons issued to her. The summons issued to the petitioner u/s 108 of the Act is in respect of an inquiry which respondent no.3 is conducting in relation to import of leggings and pyjamas by the aforesaid firms, of which the petitioner, admittedly, is the majority stakeholder. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to urge that no purpose would be served in requiring her to appear in response to the summons issued to her u/s 108 of the Act. It is not for her to reach any such conclusion, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to scuttle the inquiry underway in respect of import of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a , 2015 (319) ELT 9 (SC); vi) Rajender Arora Ors. V. UOI Ors ., W.P. (C) No.389/2010 decided by the Supreme Court on 07.12.2010. 12. A perusal of these orders show that the Supreme Court and this Court have routinely permitted the counsel of the noticee to remain present at the time of interrogation/questioning of the noticee u/s 108 of the Act, subject to the condition that the counsel shall be placed at a visible distance, but beyond audible distance from the place of inquiry, so that the counsel may be able to see that the noticee is not subjected to any physical harm, but he is not able to hear the process of interrogation/inquiry undertaken by the authorities. 13. The aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner is strongly o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whims of the persons in possession of useful information for the departments are allowed to prevail. For achieving the object of such an enquiry if the appropriate authorities be of the view that such persons should be dissociated from the atmosphere and the company of persons who provide encouragement to them in adopting a noncooperative attitude to the machineries of law, there cannot be any legitimate objection in depriving them of such company. The relevant provisions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construed in the spirit they were made and the benefits thereunder should not be expanded to favour exploiters engaged in tax evasion at the cost of public exchequer. Applying the just, fair and reasonable test we ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree Judges, was in the context of the direct involvement of the learned counsel during the actual interrogation where the lawyer assumed an active role during the interrogation. On the other hand, the order that has been sought, as passed in various matters does not contemplate such an eventuality. In fact in terms of the orders which were have earlier passed, a lawyer has no role to play whatsoever during the interrogation, except to be at a distance beyond hearing range to ensure that no coercive methods were used during the interrogation . 15. Since Birendra Kumar Pandey (supra) is a subsequent decision, which takes note of the earlier decision in Poolbandi (supra) and explains the same, I am bound to follow the decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
