Facts of the Case

This case arises under the Customs Act, 1962, not GST law, even though the Court's reasoning draws on precedent from GST-summons cases by analogy. Sushil Kumar Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 942 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court against the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the Union of India, and the State of Maharashtra. He had been issued a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, by the DRI, and sought a direction permitting the presence of his advocate during interrogation and recording of statements — at a distance where the advocate could see but not hear the proceedings — relying on the Supreme Court's general directions in Vijay Sajnani v. Union of India. He also sought permission to record any voluntary statement in his own handwriting.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a person summoned for interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act is entitled to have an advocate present at a visible-but-not-audible distance during questioning.
  2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to record his voluntary statement in his own handwriting.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's directions in Vijay Sajnani v. Union of India, permitting the presence of an advocate at visible but not audible distance during interrogation and examination of a person under the Customs Act.
  • He argued this was necessary to safeguard fair investigation.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The DRI and Union of India opposed insisting on the presence of a lawyer as a matter of right during interrogation under the Customs Act, citing decisions such as Poolpandi v. Superintendent of Central Excise.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench (Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh) noted that Poolpandi had been distinguished on facts by the Supreme Court in Birendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India.
  • The Bench found itself bound by the Supreme Court's rulings in Vijay Sajnani and Birendra Kumar Pandey, as well as Coordinate Benches of the Bombay High Court which, drawing analogy from GST-summons cases under Section 70 of the Maharashtra GST Act, 2017, had permitted presence of a lawyer at visible but not audible distance.
  • The Court held that permitting the advocate's presence at visible but not audible distance was an aspect of fair investigation, and declined to take a different view from its Coordinate Benches.
  • The writ petition succeeded: the petitioner's advocate was permitted to be present during interrogation at visible but not audible distance, but the Court declined to permit the petitioner to record his own voluntary statement in his own handwriting.
  • The Court clarified that non-availability of the lawyer could not be a ground for the petitioner to seek exemption from interrogation when called.

Important Clarification

This ruling is fundamentally a Customs Act, 1962 decision on the rights of a person summoned under Section 108 — it does not decide any question of GST law. GST cases (interrogation under Section 70 of the State GST Act) are cited only as persuasive analogous authority. The practical takeaway for anyone facing interrogation under either the Customs Act or GST law in Maharashtra (and several other jurisdictions) is that courts have generally permitted an advocate to be present at visible but not audible distance, though not to dictate or record the statement itself.

Sections Involved

  • Customs Act, 1962 — Section 108 (power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents), the operative provision in this case.
  • Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 70, cited only as analogous precedent from other cases, not applied directly here.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided substantially in favour of the petitioner: his advocate was permitted to be present at visible but not audible distance during DRI interrogation under the Customs Act — a Customs Act ruling, not a GST decision.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 942 of 2023
Coram: Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Date: 28.04.2023 (order); pronounced 09.05.2023
Parties: Sushil Kumar Singh vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Others

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.