Case Law Details
Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Introduction: In the case of Kamlesh Kumar Mishra vs State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of allowing an advocate’s presence during an interrogation under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This landmark ruling elucidates the rights of the accused during an interrogation procedure.
Analysis: The petitioner sought the presence of an advocate at a visible, yet non-audible distance during the recording of their voluntary statement under Section 70. Highlighting past precedents where such permissions were granted, the petitioner also requested the recording of the interrogation at his own expense. The court, considering the arguments presented and the attached exhibits, agreed with the petitioner.
The ruling affirms the respondent’s readiness to comply with the law and their acceptance for the advocate’s presence and the video recording of the procedure. Consequently, the court permitted the petitioner’s advocate to be present during the recording of the statement and allowed the videography of the session, to be shouldered by the petitioner. A copy of the video recording would be provided to the petitioner post issuance of the show-cause notice.
Conclusion: This ruling emphasizes the protection of the rights of the accused during interrogation under the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It underscores the importance of legal representation at crucial stages of an investigation. By allowing the presence of an advocate and videography of the interrogation, the Bombay High Court has established a key precedent for future cases concerning the rights of individuals during interrogations.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the Respondent-State. Mr. Jitendra Mishra waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.
3. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press for prayer clauses (a) and (b) in view of the statement made by the learned Special P.P. appearing for the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2 will act in accordance with law. As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, learned Counsel presses for the said prayer clause (c), which reads thus;
“(c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents their subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith permit recording of voluntary statements of the Petitioner under Section 70 of the Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 under the presence of Advocate at visible but not audible distance during interrogation at reasonable office working hours, which may be video graphed at the Petitioner’s cost.”
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court and the Apex Court, has time and again permitted the presence of an Advocate at a visible, but not at an audible distance and has also permitted the petitioner therein to videograph the recording of his statement. Learned Counsel relied on the orders annexed to the petition which are at ‘Exhibit-E’ to ‘Exhibit-L’.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent No.2 states that the respondent No.2 has no objection for the presence of the Advocate at the time of recording of the petitioner’s statement provided that he is at a visible distance, but not at an audible distance. Learned Spl.P.P. also has no objection, if the videography is done, however, at the cost of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid and having regard to the orders annexed to the petition from ‘Exhibit-E’ to ‘Exhibit-L’, we allow the petition and as such, permit the petitioner’s Advocate to remain present at the time of recording of the petitioner’s statement at a visible, but not at an audible distance. We also permit videography of the said petitioner’s statement, at the cost of the petitioner. A copy of the said videography shall be handed over to the petitioner after show cause notice is issued to the petitioner.
7. The Petition is accordingly allowed and as such, disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
