9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Joshi Co., for the Petitioner. Shri J.B. Mishra, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Petition is filed seeking following reliefs. (a) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to prohibit the officers of respondent no. 2 from exercising power of arrest the petitioners, under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, and summoning any of them under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, in F. No. DRI/MZU/E/INT-65/2019, without following the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as contained in Section 154 to 157, 167, 172 and other applicable provisions thereof, in absence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted in Cr. W.P. No. 349 of 2018 vide order dated 25-1-2018 (Exh.12) and in Cri. W.P. No. 572 of 2018 vide Order dated 10-4-2018 (Ex.14) and Cri. W.P. No. 3104 of 2018 vide order dated 20th July 2018 (Ex.15) and Cri. W.P. 5703 of 2018 order dated 20-12-2018 (Ex.16) and Cri. W.P. No. 201 of 2019 Order dated 29-1-2019 (Ex. 17). 2. So far as the relief claimed in prayer clauses (a) and (c) is concerned, same is about pre-arrest bail. Mr. Kantawala, Learned Senior Counsel, however having taken instructions from his client, make a statement that he is not pressing the relief claimed in prayer clauses (a) and (c). Statement is accepted. 3. As far as relief claimed in prayer clause (b) is concerned, petitioners are seekin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders placed before us. In Birendra Kumar Pandey Anr. (Supra), the petitioners were served with notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1961, to appear before the Customs authority for interrogation in connection with certain matters and they were apprehensive that coercive attempts may be used to extort confessions from them and therefore, they prayed for the interrogation in presence of lawyer within a visible but beyond hearing distance. The Apex Court, after making reference to the Three judges Bench in case of Poolpandi and Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Others (1992) 3 SCC 259 = 1992 (60) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) and the subsequent judgment in case of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Jugal Kishore Samra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as sought for therefore came to be granted in favour of the petitioners. 7. We have also referred to the judgment of the Telangana High Court wherein the petitioners have challenged the summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners claimed protection from arrest and the Telangana High Court dismissed the petition along with connected petitions as it did not find favour with the petitioners and the Telangana High Court after making reference to the scheme of CGST Act, 2017 and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and specifically as regards Sections 41 and 41-A held that the protection under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29-5-2019 had made it clear that the dismissal of appeal against Telangana High Court Judgment should be kept in mind while considering the request of pre-arrest bail. However, neither of the judgment dealt with the issue which is placed before us for consideration. 8. The Apex Court in Criminal M.P. No. 10117 of 2012 in WP(Crl.) No. 29 of 2012 in Vijay Sajnani Anr v. Union of India made the following observations : Similar matters have been filed before us earlier and in whose matters, we had directed that during interrogation of the petitioner(s), his/their counsel would be allowed to be present within visible distance, but beyond hearing range. Inasmuch as, the same orders are being passed in these matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
