1 Cri-A-374-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2011 Parul L. Shah & Ors. .. Petitioners vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Pravartak Phatak i/b. Uday P.Warunjikar, h/f Yogesh M.Rohira,Advocates, for the petitioners. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar,Advocate for the respondent No.2. Mr. V.B.Konde Deshmukh, APP, for the respondent No.3 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 4th May, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. As per the summons issued on 13.4.2011, the statements of the petitioners were recorded by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. According to the petitioners, the statements were not correctly recorded and they have submitted their written statement and thereby they have tried to retract from the statements recorded by the officers of the Revenue Intelligence. The petitioners apprehend that they may be recalled for recording statements again and they have apprehension of violation of their fundamental 2 Cri-A-374-11.sxw rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioners orally contended that they are apprehensive of use of third degree methods for forcing the petitioners to make certain statements. Therefore, they want protection from this Court that the petitioners' interrogation under Section 108 of the Customs Act may be held in the presence of their Advocate at visible but not audible distance within office hours. 3. The application is opposed by the respondents as per the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No.2 - Aarti Saxena, Deputy Director in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It is denied that they have previously wrongly recorded statements and that they have any intention to use any illegal methods to compel the petitioners to make any statement and according to them, the presence of the Advocate is not required as and when the petitioners are to be interrogated. After some discussion and after taking instructions from the concerned officer, who is present before the Court, the learned Counsel for the respondents left to the discretion of the Court whether to grant permission to the Advocate of the petitioners to remain present at visible distance at the time of recording statement. 4. Without entering into the question whether previously the officers of 3 Cri-A-374-11.sxw the Revenue Intelligence had recorded statements of the petitioners correctly or not and whether the apprehension of the petitioners about any third degree method is justified or not, in my opinion, when the petitioners have expressed some apprehension, it will be in the interest of justice to allay that apprehension which can be done by allowing the Advocate of the petitioners to remain present at visible distance at the time of interrogation. At the time of interrogation, the Advocate for the petitioners cannot be allowed to remain present at audible distance which may give an opportunity to the petitioners to consult the Advocate at the time of interrogation nor the Advocate can be allowed to interfere at the time of actual interrogation and recording of statement. The petitioners want that their statement should be recorded only during office hours. As far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, she is a lady and it will be desirable that her statement should be recorded only during day time, but as far as petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, it will be difficult to put any restrictions on the time at which they may be interrogated by the Intelligence Officer. 5. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of with the following directions:- At the time of interrogation of the petitioners, the respondents shall 4 Cri-A-374-11.sxw allow their Advocate to remain at visible distance, but not at audible distance. It is made clear that the petitioners will not be allowed to interact with their Advocate nor their Advocate will be allowed to interfere at the time of interrogation or at the time of recording of statement of the petitioners under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Petitioner No.3 - Poonam Dighe, being a woman, shall be interrogated only after sunrise and before sunset. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)