Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
REVATI MOHITE DERE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Bhavika Soni - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice, Branch Secretariat, Mumbai & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3492 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Brijesh Pathak a/w. Mr. Shrey Lodha.
For the Respondent: Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP, Mrs. Sangeeta Yadav.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the petitioner's advocate can be present at a visible but not audible distance during the petitioner's interrogation, and videography of the interrogation can be permitted at the petitioner's cost.
Headnote:
Advocate Presence - Customs Act - The court allowed the petitioner's advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance during the petitioner's interrogation by the Respondent No.2, and permitted videography of the interrogation at the petitioner's cost.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to permit the petitioner's advocate to attend the proceedings in question before the DRI in a visible but not audible distance, and to permit videography of the petitioner's interrogation at the petitioner's cost.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no impediment in permitting the petitioner's advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance during the petitioner's interrogation by the Respondent No.2, and allowed videography of the interrogation at the petitioner's cost.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner's advocate could attend the proceedings in question before the DRI in a visible but not audible distance, and whether videography of the petitioner's interrogation could be permitted at the petitioner's cost.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and found no impediment in allowing the petitioner's advocate to be present at a visible but not audible distance during the interrogation, and permitted videography of the interrogation at the petitioner's cost.
Final Decision: The rule was made absolute on the terms that the petitioner's advocate could remain present at a visible but not audible distance during the petitioner's interrogation by the Respondent No.2, and videography of the interrogation was permitted at the petitioner's cost. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Revati Mohite Dere, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.
2. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.1 and Ms. Yadav wives notice on behalf of contesting Respondent–DRI i.e. Respondent No.2 against whom the relief is sought.
3. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent No.2–DRI to permit the Petitioner to attend the proceedings in question before the DRI in his advocate’s presence i.e. the advocate would be at a visible distance, but not audible distance, during the course of his interrogation by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner also prays that videography of the Petitioner’s interrogation be permitted, at Petitioner’s cost.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1st February 2022 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6558 of 2021, as well as the Judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.3909 of 2022. He submits that the prosecution against the Petitioner is under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the Petitioner has been issued summons to attend the office of the DRI in connection with the same. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is ready to attend the office of the DRI, any time as and when summoned by the Respondent No.1–DRI. Statement accepted.
5. Ms. Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 opposes the Petition.
6. We have perused the Judgment of this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6558 of 2021 (Coram : R.D. Dhanuka and S.M. Modak, JJ.), as well as the Judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.3909 of 2023, passed by us (Coram : Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ.). Considering the prayers made in the Petition, we do not find any impediment in permitting the Petitioner’s advocate to remain present when the Petitioner is summoned for interrogation by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner’s advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance. We also permit videography of the said interrogation, however, at the cost of the Petitioner.
7. We make it clear that if the Petitioner’s advocate is unable to remain present or if the person videographing is not present, that will not be a ground for the Petitioner, not to remain present, before the Respondent No.2–DRI, when summoned.
8. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and is accordingly disposed of.
9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Judgment.
