TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient reason has to be read ejusdem generis to the first two grounds. No doubt, if a litigant, in a particular case, is able to produce credible material to indicate a real and live apprehension, of the possibility of coercive methods being employed, while recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Act, the court can always permit the presence of an advocate, at visible, but not audible, distance, during the course of recording of the statement - The apprehension of coercive measure being employed is, however, required to be real and live, so that the grant of permission to have the presence of an advocate, at visible, but not audible, distance, which is an exception, does not become the rule. In order to satisfy ourse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s conducted, at the premises of the petitioner, on 12th June, 2018, and goods were seized. Since then, investigations, in the matter, are proceeding. 4. Several summons were issued, many of which were avoided by the petitioner. We have noted, in our order dated 2nd September, 2019, that the petitioner avoided the summons issued to him, on 26th February, 2019, 4th March, 2019, 1st April, 2019, 15th April, 2019 and 13th June, 2019. Proceedings under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have also been initiated against the petitioner, for willful disobedience of the summons issued to him. 5. The prayer clause, in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, reads thus: (i) To Quash and set aside the searc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the investigation depends upon the cooperation between of the parties and the complexity of the situation. 15. As the investigation is ongoing, we are not going much into and upon the facts of the case. Suffice it to state, that the petitioner has to attend hearing before the DRI Ahmedabad, as per summons issued to this petitioner. 16. At this stage, we see no reason to quash the search and seizure dated 12th June, 2018 carried out by Respondent No.2 at the premises of this petitioner. Nor we see any justifiable reason for quashing and setting aside the summons, as stated in the prayer clause. 17. If the petitioner is non-cooperative, actions are bound to be action to be initiated by respondents in accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s heard Mrs. Anjali Jha Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner, on merits. Having done so, we do not see any justification to grant the prayer for review, even on merits. 12. Ms. Manish candidly concedes that there is no absolute entitlement, in law, for an advocate s presence, at visible, but not audible distance, during the course of recording of a statement, pursuant to summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). She has, however, drawn our attention to various orders, passed by the Supreme Court and High Courts, wherein this concession has been granted. 13. She drew our especial attention to order, dated 16th April, 2012, passed by the Supreme Court in Birendra Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an advocate s presence at visible, but not audible, distance, during the recording of the statement under Section 108 of the Act, was permitted because the petitioners, in that case, were apprehensive that coercive attempts could be made to extort confessions from them. 16. No doubt, if a litigant, in a particular case, is able to produce credible material to indicate a real and live apprehension, of the possibility of coercive methods being employed, while recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Act, the court can always permit the presence of an advocate, at visible, but not audible, distance, during the course of recording of the statement. 17. The apprehension of coercive measure being employed is, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 construed in the spirit they were made and the benefits thereunder should not be expanded to favour exploiters engaged in tax evasion at the cost of public exchequer. Applying the just, fair and reasonable test' we hold that there is no merit in the stand of appellant before us. (Emphasis supplied) 19. In order to satisfy ourselves, regarding the reasonableness of the petitioner s request, we queried, of Ms. Manish, in that regard, whereupon she submits that, during the course of proceedings before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
