Manishbhai Narshibhai Talavijya And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The Petitioners, Manishbhai Narshibhai Talaviya and Ravindrabhai Manharbhai Zalavadiya, approached the High Court seeking directions against the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). They alleged that DRI officers visited their residences on January 18, 2023, and seized certain goods on January 20, 2023. A supurdnama was issued for the seized goods to a relative, directing the Petitioners to appear before the DRI office in Mumbai. The Petitioners claimed they did not receive any formal summons and that the supurdnama lacked a case or file number. They subsequently wrote to the DRI on February 3, 2023, requesting issuance of summons and permission for their advocate's presence during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance, along with video-graphing of the proceedings at their cost.

Held

The Court held that the presence of the Petitioners' advocate during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance is an aspect of fair investigation and is permissible. The Court found no reason to deviate from the views taken by coordinate benches of the High Court and the Apex Court. Specifically, the Court referred to the Apex Court's direction in Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India & Ors. and Birendra Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India, which allowed counsel to be present within visible distance but beyond hearing range. The Court noted that the decision in Poolpandi, relied upon by the DRI, was distinguished by the Apex Court in Birendra Kumar Pandey. The Court also observed that the DRI had selectively permitted lawyers' presence in other cases, making their argument against it in this case unconvincing. However, the Court did not deem it fit to grant the relief of video-graphing the interrogation. The Petitioners were directed to ensure their lawyer's presence, and the non-availability of a lawyer would not be a ground to seek exemption from interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the presence of their Advocate during interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at a visible but not audible distance, and for video-graphing of the interrogation at their cost, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioners contended that various decisions of the Apex Court and the High Court have permitted the presence of Advocates during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance. They relied on several High Court judgments, including Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain vs. Union of India and others, and Deputy Director, DRI, Mumbai Zonal Unit vs. Kaja Abdul Hameed and Another. They also highlighted instances where the DRI itself had permitted lawyers' presence in similar cases. Respondent's (DRI) Arguments: The DRI argued that the presence of lawyers during interrogation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. They cited several Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including Poolpandi and Ors. vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors., and Sandeep Jain vs. Additional Director DRI, which generally do not permit lawyers' presence during interrogation. The DRI also submitted that summons were duly served on the Petitioners via speed post and email, and the Petitioners failed to cooperate.