POOLPANDI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question arising in these cases is whether the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1986, the appellant in Criminal Appeals Nos -302 -301 of 1987 and the petitioners in the other cases are entitled to the presence of their lawyers when they are questioned during the investigation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (here in after referred as to FERA). There is difference of opinion between the High Courts on this issue, the Delhi High Court in the judgment under challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1986 holding against the revenue, and the Madras High Court taking the opposite view in its judgment impugned in Criminal Appeals Nos. 301-302 of 1987.

(2.) The main argument has been addressed by Mr. Salve with reference to the facts in Criminal Appeals Nos. 301 and 302 of 1987 arising out of a matter under the Customs Act, 1962. Mr. U. R. Lalit, the counsel in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 717 of 1991, has adopted his contentions and supported the same by additional grounds. The Enforcement Directorate, Delhi Zone, investigating the matter under the FERA, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1986 against the judgment of the Delhi High:Court allowing the applications under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, of the respondents, who are represented before us by Mr. Panjwani.

(3.) Mr. Salve referred to the provisions of Chapters XIII and XIV of the Customs Act and contended that since there is no statutory provision prohibiting the presence of a counsel during the interrogation of the person concerned, a request in this regard, if made cannot be legitimately refused. In any event:the learned counsel proceeded to urge, that in a situation where the possibility of the person under interrogation of being prosecuted as an accused cannot be denied, he is entitled to the assistance of a lawyer during the questioning, because to deny him such a right would be violative of the constitutional protection under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. Alternatively Mr. Salve contended that in view of the constitutional protection of life and personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21, the person concerned is entitled to insist upon the presence of his lawyer when he is questioned by the officers of the department.