Sushil Kumar Singh vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence And Ors.

Facts

The Petitioner, Sushil Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to permit his advocate's presence during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance, and to allow him to record his statement in his own handwriting. The Petitioner alleged that his firm's goods were examined on September 7, 2022, his statement recorded, and documents seized on September 9, 2022. He further claimed that on subsequent dates, including December 27-28, 2022, and January 10, 17, 2023, he was coerced into giving statements and forced to sign that he did not require an advocate. The Petitioner expressed apprehension of self-incriminating statements being obtained under duress. The Respondent No. 1 (DRI) contended that the presence of an advocate during interrogation is not a matter of right and relied on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

Held

The Court held that the presence of the Petitioner's advocate during interrogation is permissible at a visible but not audible distance. The Court found this to be an aspect of fair investigation and aligned with the views taken by coordinate benches of the Bombay High Court. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Poolpandi, noting it was in the context of the lawyer assuming an active role. The Court acknowledged that other High Courts have taken a view against the presence of lawyers but stated these had persuasive value, not binding authority. The Court respectfully followed the Apex Court's decision in Vijay Sajnani and Birendra Kumar Pandey, as well as its own coordinate bench decisions. The Court did not deem it appropriate to permit the Petitioner to record his voluntary statement in his own handwriting. The Court clarified that the Petitioner is responsible for ensuring his lawyer's presence, and the non-availability of a lawyer cannot be a ground to seek exemption from interrogation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the presence of his advocate during interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at a visible but not audible distance, in light of the Apex Court's directions in Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India and Ors. and subsequent judgments of this Court? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to record his voluntary statement in his own handwriting during interrogation by the DRI? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the DRI officers misbehaved and coerced them into giving statements, forcing them to sign declarations waiving their right to an advocate. They relied on the Apex Court's decision in Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India and Ors. and subsequent orders from coordinate benches of this Court permitting advocate presence. They asserted a reasonable apprehension of self-incrimination due to the alleged coercive tactics. Revenue's Arguments: Respondent No. 1 argued that the presence of an advocate during interrogation cannot be demanded as a matter of right. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Poolpandi and Ors. vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors., and various other High Court judgments (Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal, Sandeep Jain, Amit Joshi, Saurabh Mittal, Pawan Kumar, Enforcement Directorate vs. Partha Chatterjee, Bhag Singh, Vigin Verghese, Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain) which held that an advocate's presence is not permissible or should be granted sparingly.