TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TICE S. MURALIDHAR AND JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA For the Petitioner : Ms.Anjali J. Manish, Mr.Priyadarshi Manish and Ms.Nishi Saini, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr.P.C. Yadav, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr.Soumitra Shukla, Advocate for UOI. Mr.Satish C. Aggarwala, Advocate O R D E R CRL.M.A. 1558/2018 in W.P.(CRL) 270/2018 1. Notice. Mr. Satish C. Aggarwala, Advocate for R-2/Customs and Mr.P.C. Yadav, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India accept notice. 2. On the last date of hearing, Mr. Aggarwala had sought time for instructions as to whether the Customs Department could agree to the presence of the counsel for the Petitioner within visible range but outside audible range while the Petitioner is questioned b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of in the aforesaid terms. 5. Ms. Manish also relied on the decisions in D.K.Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416; Ashok K. Johri v. State of U.P. (1997) 1 SCC 416; Senior Intelligence v. Jugal Kishore Samra (2011) 12 SCC 362; Mahendra Kumar Kundia v. Union of India (2015) (319) E.L.T. 9 (S.C); Vijay Sajnani v. Union of India (2017) (345) E.L.T. 323 (S.C); Rohit Shakhuja v. Dy. Dir., DRI, New Delhi (2017) (349) E.L.T. 204 (S.C.); Birendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India (decision dated 16th April 2012 of the Supreme Court in W.P.(Crl.) 28 of 2012) and Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424 to urge that in the present case, the Court should permit the presence of counsel within range of sight but outside of audible range whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings on 25th January 2018. 9. In response to a query as to whether the Customs Department would still require to question the Petitioner since a SCN has been issued, Mr. Aggarwala, on instructions stated that the SCN was only with regard to the seizure of goods whereas the investigation into the alleged violations by the Petitioner is still in progress. Therefore, the Department would require the presence of the Petitioner for questioning. 10. Having considered the above submissions, the Court is of the view that in the circumstances outlined in the application and as explained to this Court, the Petitioner having been in custody for 52 days during which time he was not questioned by the Customs Department, it is appropriate that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
