Amit Kumar Sharma vs. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence And Ors

Facts

The Petitioner, Amit Kumar Sharma, filed a writ petition seeking directions for his Advocate to be present during interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at a visible but not audible distance, as per the Supreme Court's direction in Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India. The Petitioner also sought to record his voluntary statement in his own handwriting. The Petitioner alleged that DRI officers searched his firm's premises, seized documents, and later coerced him and his partner to sign statements without legal representation, even forcing them to write that they did not require an advocate. The Petitioner claimed apprehension of self-incriminating statements being taken forcefully. The DRI argued that the presence of an advocate during interrogation is not a right and cited various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, including Poolpandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, to support their stance.

Held

The Court held that the presence of the Petitioner's Advocate during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance is permissible. The Court found no reason to deviate from the view taken by coordinate benches of the Bombay High Court, which have consistently permitted such presence, citing decisions in Kalpesh Ghevarchand Jain, Mayur Chavda, and Kamlesh Kumar Mishra. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Poolpandi, noting it was in the context of the lawyer taking an active role, unlike the current request for passive presence. The Court also noted that the Apex Court in Birendra Kumar Pandey had distinguished Poolpandi. However, 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. The writ petition was allowed in part.

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 accordance with the directions of the Apex Court in Vijay Sajnani vs. Union of India and Ors.? 2. Whether the Petitioner can demand the right to record his voluntary statement in his own handwriting? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contended that the DRI officers refused to allow his Advocate's presence during interrogation, despite communications referencing the Apex Court's decision in Vijay Sajnani. The Petitioner alleged coercive tactics, including being held for extended periods and forced to state that an advocate was not required. This conduct created a reasonable apprehension of self-incriminating statements being taken against his will. The Petitioner relied on the Apex Court's decision in Vijay Sajnani. Revenue's Arguments: The Respondent No.1 (DRI) argued that the presence of an Advocate during interrogation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Poolpandi and Ors. vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors., and several other High Court judgments, asserting that lawyers are not permitted during examination under the Customs Act. They also cited cases where the presence of a lawyer was granted sparingly in exceptional circumstances.