9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urth respondent, in connection with the investigation of F.No.ECIR/KZSZO/05/2020/536. The prayers in the writ petition is (i) to direct the respondents to abstain from harassing, threatening or coercing the petitioners during questioning, (ii) to permit the presence of a legal practitioner, (iii) to limit the questioning time between 9.30 a.m and 4.30 p.m and (iv) to direct the respondents to provide copies of the statements taken from them. The reason for approaching this Court is stated to be the petitioners' apprehension due to the manner in which Ms.Swapna E.P, sister of the first petitioner and daughter of the second petitioner, was questioned and her statement recorded under threat and coercion. 2. The fourth respondent has filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gal practitioner during questioning was considered and negated by this Court in W.P(C) No. 28049 of 2020. Therein, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Kirit Shrimankar v. Union of India and Others [order dated 20.11.2014 in WP(Crl.) No.110 of 2013] and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28]. In Kirit Shrimankar, the petitioner had approached the Apex Court after the Customs officials conducted a search in the residential premises of his former wife. The petitioner alleged that he was threatened with arrest and incarceration if he did not submit to the dictates of the Customs Officials. The Apex Court observed that it was highly premature for the petitioner to seek remedy under Article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The decision of the High Court of Delhi in Virbhadra Singh and Another v. Directorate of Enforcement and Another [2017 SCC Online Del 8930], is to the effect that, no person is entitled in law to evade the command of the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act on the ground of a possibility of such person being prosecuted in future. 7. In Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise [(1992) 3 SCC 259] the Honourable Supreme Court had occasion to deal with the entitlement of a person summoned under the Customs Act to have the presence of a companion during questioning. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: "11. We do not find any force in the arguments of Mr Salve and Mr Lalit that if a person is called away f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative 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 hold that there is no merit in the stand of appellant before us." 8. Another relevant decision is, Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and Others v. M.M.Exports and Another [(2010) 15 SCC 647], wherein the Apex Court cautioned the High Courts against interference at the summons stage. In Dukhishyam Benupani v. Assistant Director, Enfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
