2023 (3) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioner and this is what has been done by this Court in several similar cases in the past - reliance can be placed in case of SHRI BYJU CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [ 2022 (4) TMI 1515 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , HARSHBHAI AMARSHIBHAI GOYANI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2022 (4) TMI 1517 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , MANIPRABHA IMPEX PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2022 (4) TMI 1516 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - thus, the first prayer to the extent, it seeks presence of advocate at visible distance but not audible distance deserves to be allowed. De-sealing of the premises of the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- There is no power available with the custom authorities to seal premises of any person, which are nothing but a form of immovable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r, rejected - Petition allowed in part.
SUNIL B. SHUKRE ANDKAMAL KHATA, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Brijesh Pathak. For Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-DRI. : Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Mishra for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-DRI. For the State : Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa, APP. ORAL JUDGMENT : - (PER - SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J) Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioner seeks relief in the nature of recording his statement under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 in visible but not audible distance of advocate. The Petitioner is also seeking de-sealing of his premises. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in similar matters, this Court has permitted presence of the advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... distance but beyond the audible distance. This will also ensure transparency in the enquiry that Custom Officers propose to make with the Petitioner and this is what has been done by this Court in several similar cases in the past and some of them are as under: i) Writ Petition No. 4322 of 2022, decided on 12th April, 2022; ii) Writ Petition No. 3679 of 2022, decided on 12th April, 2022; iii) Writ Petition No. 2470 of 2022, decided on 11th April, 2022 and so on. We, therefore, find that the first prayer to the extent, it seeks presence of advocate at visible distance but not audible distance deserves to be allowed. 6. As regards second prayer about de-sealing of the premises of the Petitioner, we find that there is no power avail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X