TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst that he is not liable to be summoned and in the alternative for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to question him only in the presence of a lawyer of his choice. Learned single Judge did not accede to the prayers and hence dismissed the original petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence this appeal. 2.It seems that a raid has been conducted in the business premises of this appellant on 20-1-1995 and some documents were recovered by the senior Intelligence Officers of the Anti Evasion Directorate of the Cochin unit. A summons was issued to the appellant to be present on 31-1-1995 for the purpose of examination under Section 14 of the Act. Pursuant to the summons he appeared before the said officer and he w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the purposes of this Act". Learned counsel tried to distinguish the exercise sought to be made through Exts. P4 and P5 summons from in inquiry envisaged in the sub-section on the premise that the second respondent was actually conducting an investigation which is different from inquiry. To support the contention reference has been made to Section 14A of the Act which has been inserted in the present Act as per Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1995. The new section is titled "special audit in certain cases" Material portion of sub-section (1) of the new section reads as follows : "If at any stage of enquiry, investigation or any other proceedings before him, any Central Excise Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut Their Lordships added that a legal principle is not laid down that accused must secure services of a lawyer and all that was meant is that if an accused person expresses the wish to have his lawyer by his side when his examination goes on, this facility shall not be denied. This decision was distinguished by the Supreme Court in the context of the enquiry envisaged in the Customs Act, [vide Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 24 (SC) = AIR 1992 SC 1795] pointing out that the former it was a case of an accused entitled to protection under the Article 20(3) and the officers were policemen, whereas in the case under the Customs Act the person does not become an accused during the enquiry stage nor the customs offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs officer is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since Customs officers are not police officers for the purpose of the enquiry.contemplated in the Act. The principles laid down in the above two decisions have also been taken into account by the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC 1795 in laying down the principle. 7.We do not think that the above principle which is made applicable and relevant under the Customs Act is alien to an inquiry conducted under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Both Acts have been treated as similar enactment by the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. We have no reason to treat the claim of the appellant to be protected by a legal practitioner's presence during the oral examination as di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
