SATYANARAYAN Vs. CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to permit them to be accompanied by a lawyer whenever they are summoned for interrogation; to allow petitioner No. 1 to represent the other members of his family; permit an advocate of their choice to remain present during investigation, interrogation or examination and direct the respondents to interrogate the petitioners only during office hours, that too after giving them reasonable notice of at least 48 hours. The petitioners alleged that one Shri Vinod Goel, a non-resident Indian, made gifts of amounts mentioned in para 4 of the petition in their favour and they learnt that Directorate of Enforcement has started enquiry into the said payments made by Shri Vinod Goel to other persons. Therefore, the petitioners reasonably apprehend that similar proceedings would be initiated against them.

(2.) PENDING this petition, the petitioners moved for interim direction and this Court on 11-2-1997 passed an order stating that it is open for the petitioners to make appropriate application before the authority seeking permission for the presence or company of an Advocate of their choice at the time of interrogation. Pursuant to the said direction, they moved the appropriate authority by Annexure-I application which was disposed of by the authority by the order Annexure-II. Later the writ petition came to be amended by which the petitioners incorporated fresh allegations and also prayer clause (iii-a) seeking to quash and set aside the order at Annexure-II. The petitioners had also moved Crim. Appln. No. 132/97 for appropriate orders.

(3.) ON behalf of respondents, reply was filed to the aforesaid application and additional reply to the amended writ petition. The learned Counsel for the respondents sought permission to treat the reply to the application for appropriate orders as reply to the writ petition. Learned Counsel, Shri Bobde, for the petitioners maintained that as per section 40 (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short the Act), a person who is summoned by the authority is entitled to have the presence of lawyer at the time of his interrogation. According to the learned Counsel the very wording of the section would show that when a prayer is made by the person who is summoned under the said provision for permitting the assistance of a lawyer or any authorised agent of his choice, at the time of his interrogation, that has to be considered and, according to the learned Counsel, since section 40 (3) of the Act, confers a discretion on the authority, a duty is cast upon to him to exercise the said discretion adhering to the principles of natural justice. It is also the case of the learned Counsel that any ambiguity or doubt as to the meaning of the provision in the said section has to be resolved in favour of the citizen.