Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1227 - HC - GSTSeeking permission for presence of the Advocate during the interrogation and recording of statements at visible but not audible distance and for video-graphing the interrogation - HELD THAT:- In the case of Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India & Ors. [2012 (4) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has directed that during the interrogation of the Petitioners therein, their counsel would be allowed to be present within visible distance but beyond hearing range. The Apex Court while disposing of the writ petition directed that in similar cases, in the event the person (s) summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, wish(es) for similar orders, he (they) may apply to the custom authorities concerned and a similar provision may be made for his/their interrogation in the present of the learned counse - Subsequent decisions of the Apex Court, on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, has permitted the presence of the Advocate during the interrogation of the Petitioner at visible but not audible distance. The decisions of the other High Courts have taken a view that the presence of lawyer cannot be insisted as a matter of right. However, the decisions have a persuasive value and is not binding upon this Court. The direction which has been sought by the Petitioners as regards the presence of the lawyer at visible but not audible distance is an aspect of fair investigation and we do not find any reason to take a different view from the view taken by the Coordinate Benches of this Court - it is not deemed fit to grant the relief of video-graphing. The presence of the Petitioners’ advocate during the interrogation of the Petitioners is permitted at a visible but not audible distance - petition allowed.
|