Facts of the Case

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) filed this petition challenging a direction in an order dated 31.05.2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-24, New Delhi, in proceedings connected with ECIR/HQ/14/2017 against Satyendar Kumar Jain. The trial court had directed that during interrogation of the accused, one advocate be allowed to remain present at a safe distance — able to see but not hear the accused. On 03.06.2022, the High Court had earlier stayed this direction after examining precedents including Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise (1992), which held there is no constitutional right to have a lawyer present during interrogation under special enquiry statutes. Various later judgments were also discussed, including one involving the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, cited only as part of the body of case law on the point.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a person under interrogation under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has a right to have his lawyer present within visible (but not audible) distance during recording of his statement.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Directorate of Enforcement argued there is no such right as a matter of law, relying on Poolpandi and the Division Bench ruling in Sandeep Jain v. Additional Director, DRI, which held such presence may be permitted only where a real and credible apprehension of coercion is shown, not as a matter of right.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondent's counsel had earlier relied on judgments suggesting such a facility is often permitted, but the Court found those judgments either did not consider Poolpandi or were distinguishable on facts (such as documented apprehensions of coercion or ill-treatment in other cases).

Court Order / Findings

  • Since there was neither an FIR nor a complaint against the respondent at the relevant stage, and the recording of his statement was both videographed and audiographed, the Court found no apprehension of coercion warranting a lawyer's presence as a matter of right.
  • The investigation having been completed and a prosecution complaint filed, and the respondent not contesting the matter further, the Court confirmed its earlier order dated 03.06.2022 staying the direction permitting counsel's presence.
  • The petition was accordingly disposed of, allowed in terms of the 03.06.2022 order.

Important Clarification

This case is entirely about the scope of a person's right to legal representation during interrogation in a money-laundering investigation under the PMLA — it has no bearing on GST law or GST proceedings. The reference to a GST Intelligence-related precedent in the list of authorities cited is incidental; that cited case dealt with the same broader legal question (presence of counsel during interrogation under special statutes) but was not itself under adjudication here.

Sections Involved

  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 50 (power to summon and record statements)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — inherent powers/petition procedure

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Directorate of Enforcement — the trial court's direction permitting the accused's lawyer to remain present during interrogation was confirmed to remain stayed.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
  • Case No.: CRL.M.C. 2869 of 2022 (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:3754)
  • Coram: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
  • Date of Decision: 10 May 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.