Bombay High Court
Gagan Jot Singh S/O Madan Pal Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2024
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2024:BHC-AS:2789-DB
NISHA Digitally signed by NISHA
SANDEEP CHITNIS
SANDEEP Date: 2024.01.20 15:58:02
CHITNIS +0530 25-wp.3909.2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3909 OF 2023
Gagan Jot Singh,
Son of Madan Pal Singh,
aged 43 years, Occupation: Business,
Having office address at 1st Floor, Plot No.68,
Krishna Sarada Residency, Water Tank Road,
KPHB Kukatpally, Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500072. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
(Through the Secretary),
Ministry of Law and Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs,
Branch Secretariat, Aaykar Bhavan,
Annexe, 2nd floor,
New Marine Lines,
Mumbai - 400 020.
2. Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Mumbai Zonal Unit, UTI Building,
13, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg,
New Marine Lines,
Mumbai - 400 020.
3. State of Maharashtra,
P.P. Office. ...Respondents
N. S. Chitnis 1/4
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2024 20:50:47 :::
25-wp.3909.2023.doc
Mr. Brijesh R. Pathak, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta Yadav and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. R. M. Pethe, A.P.P for the Respondent No.3 - State.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 18th JANUARY 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Ms. Yadav waives
notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Learned APP waives
notice for respondent No.3- State.
3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ/order/direction
to the respondent No.2 to record the petitioner's statement under
Section 108 of the Customs Act, in the presence of his advocate i.e. at
a visible but not audible distance, during his interrogation. The
25-wp.3909.2023.doc
petitioner also prays that videography of the petitioner's interrogation
be permitted, at the 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, by which, in a prosecution under
Section 108 of the Customs Act, such a permission as sought for in the
petition, was granted. He further states that the petitioner is only the
recipient of the goods, which were cleared by the Customs and as such
is ready to co-operate with the investigation carried out by the
Customs Department. He submits that the petitioner is ready to
attend the Customs office, any time as may be summoned by the said
authority. Statement accepted.
5. Both the prayers i.e. presence of the advocate at the time
of interrogation at a visible distance and recording of the interrogation
by videography, are vehemently opposed to, by the learned counsel for
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
25-wp.3909.2023.doc
6. However, having considered the judgment of this Court
(Coram: R. D. Dhanuka & S. M. Modak, JJ.) passed in Civil Writ
Petition No.6558 of 2021, we permit the petitioner's advocate to
remain present when the petitioner is summoned for interrogation.
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 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
appropriate authority, when summoned.
8. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. Petition is
allowed and is accordingly disposed of.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
