9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his statement per Ramesh Chander Metra [ 1968 (10) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT ] and Anant Brahmchari [ 2012 (3) TMI 695 - DELHI HIGH COURT ]. Even otherwise, admittedly, his entire recording of statement is videographed and audiographed which certainly would dispel the apprehension of any coercion, threat to the respondent. Even otherwise, in Sandeep Jain [ 2019 (12) TMI 1247 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] the Division Bench of this Court held the apprehension of coercive measures being employed need to be real and like so that the principle of presence of an advocate, at visible, but not audible distance be applied. Application disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the facts and circumstances, it is directed that during the time of enquiry/interrogation from the accused one Advocate of the accused shall be allowed to remain present at a safe distance where from he can see the accused but not hear him." 3. Heard. 4. The core issue raised in the matter is - if the respondent has a right of presence of his lawyer during recording of his statements under Section 50 of PMLA, at a safe distance from him from where the lawyer can see the accused and not hear him. 5. Both the learned counsels have cited various judgments on this issue. 6. In Poolpandi and Others vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Others 1992 (3) SCC 259, the Court did not find force in the argument that if a person is called away fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid FIR and scope of enquiry under Customs Act, 1962 is different. An enquiry under Customs Act primarily relates to the smuggling of goods. Section 108 confers upon a Gazetted officer of the Customs the powers to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any enquiry which such officer is making in connection with the smuggling of goods. The person so summoned is bound to attend and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined or makes statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required. Therefore, the impugned summons cannot be set aside. The petitioner is required to appear and answer such questions and give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statement. Reference was also made to Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Jugal Kishore Samra (2011) 12 SCC 362 which though relied on Poolpandi's case (supra) but granted permission only in the special facts and circumstances of the case viz the respondent in such case was suffering from heart disease and his brother was subject to torture as alleged. 11. The learned senior counsel for the respondent, however, submitted this facility is allowed time in and time out and has referred to various cases viz. Vijay Sajnani and Another vs. Union of India and Another (2019) 18 SCC 819; Mahender Kumar Kundia vs. Union of Inida and Another (2015) 15 SCC 419; Rohit Sakhuja vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court in PoolPandi's case. Even otherwise, Anil Vasantrao (supra) has taken a contrary view from the Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep Jain (supra) and therefore the view taken by the Divison Bench of this Court needs to be followed. 14. Thus in view of the above since there is neither any FIR nor a complaint against the respondent thus he cannot as a matter of right claim to have the presence of his lawyers during the course of recording of his statement per Ramesh Chander Metra (supra) and Anant Brahmchari (supra). Even otherwise, admittedly, his entire recording of statement is videographed and audiographed which certainly would dispel the apprehension of any coercion, threat to the respondent. Even otherwise, in Sandeep Jain (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
