Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1168 - HC - CustomsSeeking direction to the Respondent No. 1-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and its officers to permit the presence of his Advocate during the interrogation and recording of statements at visible but not audible distance - seeking permission to record his voluntary statement in his own handwriting - HELD THAT:- The Calcutta High Court in the case of ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE VERSUS PARTHA CHATTERJEE [2022 (7) TMI 1412 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS SATYENDAR KUMAR JAIN [2022 (6) TMI 382 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and held that the allegation against the E.D. that the Advocate of the accused was not allowed to be present at the time of raid is found to be false and the order permitting the presence of lawyer was set aside. 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 decision of the Apex Court in the case of VVIJAY SAJNANI & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2012 (4) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT] as well as the decision of Coordinate Benches of this Court, are binding which have permitted the presence of a lawyer at visible but not audible distance. Thus, the direction which has been sought by the Petitioner 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 - petition allowed.
|