9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the Customs Department could agree to the presence of the counsel for the Petitioner within visible range but outside audible range while the Petitioner is questioned by its officers. 3. Today, Mr. Aggarwala relied on a judgment dated 31st May 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(Crl.) 1673/2017 (Siddharth Jain v. UOI) where a similar request was declined. He has also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise (1992) 3 SCC 259. 4. Ms. Anjali Manish, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, has pointed out that the SLP (Crl.) No.4975/2017 filed against the very order of the learned Single Judge relied upon by Mr. Aggarwala, was disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424 to urge that in the present case, the Court should permit the presence of counsel within range of sight but outside of audible range while the Petitioner is being questioned by the Customs Department. Ms. Manish has also drawn the attention of the Court to Section 41-D Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the right of an arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation. 6. The special circumstances Ms. Manish points out, are that the Petitioner was arrested way back on 21st September 2017. His statement was recorded by the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch ('SIIB') on several dates prior thereto i.e. on 22nd August 2017, 6th September 2017, 20th September 2017, and 21st Septem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to this Court, the Petitioner having been in custody for 52 days during which time he was not questioned by the Customs Department, it is appropriate that the Petitioner's prayer in this application should be allowed. It is accordingly directed that the Petitioner shall be permitted the presence of an Advocate of his choice within range of sight but outside audible range while being questioned by the Customs Department hereafter. 11. It is made clear that nothing said in this order is intended to prejudice the case of either party on merits. 12. The application stands disposed of in the above terms. W.P.(CRL) 270/2018 13. Notice. Notice. Mr. Satish C. Aggarwala, Advocate for R-2/Customs and Mr. P.C. Yadav, Senior Panel Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
