Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions to allow its Counsel to be present at the time of his interrogation by the Custom Authorities.

Held

Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 gives any gazetted officer of customs the power to summon any person to give any evidence or produce documents. The section also states, that the person so summoned, is bound to attend and state      the truth upon any subject with respect to which he is being examined or make statements and produce such documents and other things as may be required. The section does not expressly mention whether the Counsel of such person so summoned would be able to witness such inquiry/interrogation. However, in the present case, Supreme Court allowed the Counsel of the petitioners to be present during the interrogation of the petitioners. Supreme Court directed that during   the interrogation the Counsel should be made to sit  within avisible distance  but beyond hearing range. It was also directed that the petitioner’s counsel should always be prepared to be present whenever the petitioners are called upon to attend the interrogation. (Cr MP No. 10117 of 2012 (WP No. 29 of 2012    dt. 25-4-2012)

Editorial : In Sangit Agarwal v. The Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2017 (356) ELT 518 (Delhi.) (HC), the Court held that the authorities may permit the presence of an Advocate during interrogation of Petitioner, however he has to be within visible range but beyond hearing range and Advocate must be prepared to be present for every summons made.

“I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to

kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.”

– Mahatma Gandhi