2012 (3) TMI 695 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Competence of Respondents to examine the Petitioner at Delhi by serving a notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C.
2. Right of the Petitioner to be accompanied by an advocate during the recording of his statement.
3. Whether the Respondents' actions amounted to illegal detention, warranting judicial enquiry and compensation.

Summary:

Issue 1: Competence to Examine at Delhi
The court examined Section 160 Cr.P.C. and Section 3 of the NIA Act. It concluded that the NIA officers have the jurisdiction to investigate and arrest any person related to scheduled offences anywhere in India. The court clarified that the NIA Act, being a special enactment, overrides the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was held that the Petitioner was lawfully served notice to join the investigation at Delhi, and the NIA officers acted within their jurisdiction.

Issue 2: Right to be Accompanied by an Advocate
The court referred to the decision in Senior Intelligence Officer Vs. Jugal Kishore Sharma, which clarified that a person called for interrogation, who is not an accused, does not have the right to be accompanied by an advocate. The court held that the Constitutional protections entitled to the accused will not be available to the Petitioner during the investigation stage.

Issue 3: Allegations of Illegal Detention and Harassment
The court found no merit in the Petitioner's claims of illegal detention and harassment. The evidence, including the register entries, showed that the Petitioner was accompanied by an advocate and allowed breaks during the investigation. The court also noted the absence of any physical injuries and the CFSL report, which did not detect any poison in the Petitioner's gastric lavage. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the Petitioner could file a criminal complaint if so advised.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the claims of jurisdictional overreach, the right to legal accompaniment during interrogation, or allegations of illegal detention and harassment. The Petitioner was advised to pursue a criminal complaint if necessary.