Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (9) TMI 597

..... me Court in the case of VIJAY SAJNANI & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2012 (4) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT] has directed that during interrogation of the petitioner(s), his/their counsel would be allowed to be present within visible distance, but beyond hearing range. The petitioner would be interrogated in presence of an advocate at a visible, but not audible distance in relation to the interrogation - the proceedings directed to be video-graphed - petition disposed off. - WRIT PETITION NO. 4222 of 2019 - 20-8-2019 - RANJIT MORE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. Dr. Sujay Kantawala i/b. Mr.Sebin M. Joseph, advocate for petitioner. Mr. J. B. Mishra, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. F. R. Shaikh, APP for the State. P. C. : Dr. Kanta .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... 2012 in writ petition (CRL) No.28 of 2012 in Birendra Pandey Vs. Union of India and submitted that petitioner seeks limited protection and such protection is already accorded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid order. 7. We have carefully perused the judgments/orders placed before us. In Birendra Kumar Pandey & Anr.(Supra), the petitioners were served with notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1961, to appear before the customs authority for interrogation in connection with certain matters and they were apprehensive that coercive attempts may be used to extort confessions from them and therefore, they prayed for the interrogation in presence of lawyer within a visible but beyond hearing distance. The Apex Court, after making refe .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... has been sought before the Court was presence of lawyer at a distance beyond hearing range to ensure that no coercive methods were used in the interrogation. The relief that was sought for, therefore, came to be granted in favour of the petitioners. 8. We have also referred to the judgment of the Telangana High Court wherein the petitioners have challenged the summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners claimed protection from arrest and the Telangana High Court dismissed the petition along with connected petitions as it did not find favour with the petitioners and the Telangana High Court after making reference to .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... rther. 10. Thus the orders placed before us pertain to the relief of pre-arrest protection and the Apex Court in its order dated 29.05.2019 had made it clear that the dismissal of appeal against Telangana High Court Judgment should be kept in mind while considering the request of pre-arrest bail. However, neither of the judgment dealt with the issue which is placed before us for consideration. 11. The Apex Court in Criminal M.P. No. 10117 of 2012 in WP(Crl.) No.29 of 2012 in Vijay Sajnani & Anr Vs. Union of India made the following observations : Similar matters have been filed before us earlier and in whose matters, we had directed that during interrogation of the petitioner(s), his/their counsel would be allowed to be present within v .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||