R V CHEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE we propose to refer the case to a larger Bench, we do not advert to the controversies in detail. We record however that although the writ petitions and the appeals were directed against notices under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, learned counsel for the appellant confined the controversy to a limited question whether a person under notice for enquiry under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act can seek assistance of a counsel and thus at the time of his interrogation be assisted by a counsel of his choice"

(2.) THIS Court more than once but specificallyanil G. Merchantv. The Director of Revenue Intelligence has said that there is no fundamental right of a person who is summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act to give evidence or to answer queries to have the presence of a lawyer of his choice during examination or interrogation. The Court, however, has said, "however, it is advisable for the department to premit the presence of the lawyers. during such examination or interrogation taking such precautionary measures as may be considered necessary to keep the confidential nature of the statement and the secrecy of the enquiry. They should also keep in view that if the presence of a lawyer during examination or interrogation is refused, the ultimate statements recorded themselves will become questionable as not voluntary or were statements which were obtained under duress and there by making them not reliable statements in any proceeding. "

(3.) FOR the reason of the nature of the inquiry and the nature of the goods being perishable, we are inclined to order as follows : (1) D. R. Vora , son of R. Rashiklal Tulsidas or any other person under notice shall avoid appearance only at his risk and thus shall be obliged to appear on the date and time that will be indicated hereinafter. (2) D. R. Vora or any other person called under notice for interrogation or any other examination in the enquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act may be accompanied by an Advocate of his choice, but the Advocate shall not enter the chambers or the room in which he or they shall be interrogated or questioned. (3) Mr. R. Mohandoss , Assistant director in the office of the Directrate of Revenue intelligence, 14, Gopalakrishna Iyer Road, T. Nagar , Madras -17 shall alone interrogated. R. Vora or any other person in connection with the case in question, Two other officers, viz. , Mr. S. P. Jeyachandran and Mr. R. Mukharram Sheriff may remain present at the time and place of interrogation of D. R. Vora or any other person. The latter, however, shall in no manner participate in the interrogation of D. R. Vora or any other person. They may give assistance to Mr. R. Mohandoss in other respects but not with respect to the interrogation. (4) Day after tomorrow (30-1-1992) is the date fixed for interrogation of D. R. Vora or any other person in connection with the case in question during the office hours, namely between 10. 30 a. m. and 4. 00 p. m. (5) The time limited by the impugned order and extended under the interim order of this Court for the purpose of completion of the enquiry/investigation, however, shall be extended by one more month, thus instead of expiring on 31-1-1992, shall expire on 29. 2. 1992.