SHAMROCK CHEMIE PVT. LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DRAFT amendment is granted. In the first sitting, it was submitted by Mr. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that there is urgency in the matter since summons has been issued to petitioner No. 2 to remain present on 9 -3 -2015. Hence, we had directed the learned counsel to inform Mr. Oza, who is appearing for the respondent. Accordingly, the matter is taken up in the second sitting.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred the present petition for the appropriate writ to direct the respondent not to torture or manhandle the petitioner during the investigation and it is prayed that the petitioner be permitted to be accompanied by the lawyer during the investigation.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances and without entering into the allegations and counter allegations regarding ill -treatment, we find that the basic thread is voluntariness of the statement, even during the interrogation. As there is apprehension alleged based on the so -called ill -treatment given to the other officers of the Company and the police complaint is also filed, we find that it would be appropriate to allow the lawyer of the petitioner to remain present within sight but not within the hearing range as and when petitioner No. 2 is interrogated by the respondent -authority, if such an interrogation is required after the petitioner remains present pursuant to the summons issued. We may also record that such a course has been adopted by this Court in the above -referred two decisions. In any case, presence of the lawyer within sight and not within hearing range would not result into interference in interrogation process nor would adversely affect the rights of the Revenue authority for further investigation in the matter. Hence, the following order: - -