SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

Y.DAYAL, LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.S.VERMA
Poolpandietc. – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent, Central Excise – Respondent


JUDGMENT

L.M. Sharma, J. - The common question arising in these cases is whether the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1986, the appellant in Criminal Appeals No. 301-302 of 1987 and the petitioners in the order cases are entitled to the presence of their lawyers when they are questioned during the investigation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as to 'FERA'). There is difference of opinion between the High Courts on this issue, the Delhi High Court in the judgment (reported in 1985 Crl. Law Journal at page 1325) under challenge in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1986 holding against the revenue, and the Madras High Court taking the opposite view in its judgment impugned in Criminal Appeals No. 301-302 of 1987.

2. The main argument has been addressed by Mr. Salve with reference to the facts in Criminal Appeals No. 301 and 302 of 1987 arising out of a matter under the Customs Act, 1962. Mr. U.R. Lalit, the Counsel in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 717 of 1991, has adopted his contentions and supported the same by additional grounds. The Enforcement Directorate, Delhi Zone, investigating the matter under the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top