9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em. 3. Petitioners have approached this Court because they apprehend that if they appear before the respondents, they would be subjected to third degree torture and/or like tactics of torture, threats and physical violence in order to coerce them into making false statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. In doing so, the respondents are seeking to decide an outcome beforehand and then subsequently working towards gathering evidence in support of such an outcome, by forcing statements out of innocent people, who are carrying on legitimate business. 4. It is argued that one Mr. Babulal, employee of Sri Sai Logistics (CHA), whose office premises was raided by DRI, was picked up by the respondents from the CHA office during the aforesaid raid and was illegally detained in their office for two days. The said employee was severely tortured and beaten up by officials of DRI and was released only next day i.e. 19-4-2018. The employee was coerced at the behest of the officials of Respondent No. 2 into making some false statement, possibly even against the petitioners herein and other business concerns, whose consignment documents were seized. He was tortured and bea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the parties, including the petitioners, would be subjected to torture or coercion, threat, violence and intimidation. We do not find any justification for the petitioners to use this kind of expressions in such a sweeping manner. 7. In the case of Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence, supra, the Supreme Court while considering Articles 22(1), 21 and 20(3) of the Constitution as to the right of a witness for the presence of his counsel during interrogation observed that respondent not being an accused, direction of Courts below that his interrogation may be held in presence of his lawyer was unsustainable. The respondent in that case was granted anticipatory bail on the ground that he was not an accused and that his medical report showed that he had been suffering from heart disease. Thereafter, respondent filed an application for modification of the order granting him anticipatory bail to the extent that the interrogation and examination of the respondent by DRI officials be conducted in the presence of his advocate and a cardiologist. The Court of Sessions, partly allowed the application of the respondent after perusing the medical report and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (S.C.) and Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras - AIR 1970 S.C. 1065 = 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1427 (S.C.). The observation of the Supreme Court in paras 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the report are apposite to reproduce hereunder : 6. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In Ramesh Chandra Mehta case, the appellant was searched at the Calcutta Airport and diamonds and jewelleries of substantial value were found on his person as also currency notes in a suitcase with him, and in pursuance to a statement made by him more pearls and jewellery were recovered from different places. He was charged with offences under the Sea Customs Act. During the trial, reliance was placed on his confessional statements made before the Customs Authorities, which was objected to on the ground that the same were inadmissible in evidence inter alia in view of the provisions of Article 20(3). While rejecting the objection, the Supreme Court held that in order that the guarantee against testimonial compulsion incorporated in Article 20(3) may be claimed by a person, it has to be established that when he made the statement in question, he was a person ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e immunity under section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this background the observations relied upon by Mr. Salve and Mr. Lalit were made and they cannot be treated, to have in any way diluted the ratio in Ramesh Chandra Mehta's case. The question whether customs officials are police officers, and whether the statements recorded by the customs authorities under section 107 and 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible in evidence were examined in Illias v. Collector of Customs (supra) and answered in the negative by a Bench of five Judges and it is, therefore, no use referring to the observations made in the judgment in a regular criminal case initiated by the police. 8. Reference was also made to the Constitution Bench decision in Ramanlal BhogiLal Shah and another v. D.K. Guha and Others, [1973] 1 SCC 696. The appellant Ramanlal was arrested on August 31, 1971 under Section 19B of the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1947, and the grounds of arrest served on him included the accusation relating to a transaction with reference to which he was summoned on April 17, 1972 to appear before the Deputy Director, Enforcement, Directorate on April 28, 1972 to give evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are in a position to afford luxuries on lavish scale of which an honest ordinary citizen of this country cannot dream of and they are surrounded by persons similarly involved either directly or indirectly in such pursuits. But that cannot be a ground for holding that he has a constitutional right to claim similar luxuries and company of his choice. Mr. Salve was fair enough not to pursue his argument with reference to the comfort part, but continued to maintain that the appellant is entitled to the company of his choice during the questioning. The purpose of the enquiry under the Customs Act and the other similar statutes will be completely frustrated if the whims of the persons in possession of useful information for the departments are allowed to prevail. For achieving the object of such an enquiry if the appropriate authorities be of the view that such persons should be dissociated from the atmosphere and the company of persons who provide encouragement to them in adopting a non-cooperative attitude to the machineries of law, there cannot be any legitimate objection in depriving them of such company. The relevant provisions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
