POOLPANDI ETC. ETC. versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

POOLPANDI ETC. ETC. versus SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

Persons interrogated under the Customs Act, 1962 or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 are not 'accused' within Article 20(3) and cannot insist on presence of lawyer during interrogation. Such questioning does not violate Article 21, and period spent in litigation is to be excluded from limitation computation for seizure proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Poolpandi; Respondent: Superintendent, Central Excise; Others (etc. etc.)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 May 1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Writ Petition / Final Judgment Delivered by Supreme Court of India
Outcome
Criminal Appeal No. 476/1986 allowed; other cases dismissed; no costs for appeal, costs to Union of India for others
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel During Interrogation, Article 20(3) Protection, Article 21 Protection, Investigation Under Customs Act and FERA, Limitation Exclusion During Litigation
Constitutional Law Tax Law Criminal Procedure Right to Counsel During Interrogation Article 20(3) Protection Article 21 Protection Investigation Under Customs Act and FERA Limitation Exclusion During Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Poolpandi

Appellant

Superintendent, Central Excise

Respondent

Others (etc. etc.)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Writ Petition / Final Judgment Delivered by Supreme Court of India

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether persons interrogated under Customs Act or FERA are entitled to assistance of lawyer during investigation
  2. 2 Whether such persons are 'accused' within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether refusal of lawyer violates Article 21

Ratio Decidendi

Persons interrogated under the Customs Act, 1962 or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 are not 'accused' within Article 20(3) and cannot insist on presence of lawyer during interrogation. Such questioning does not violate Article 21, and period spent in litigation is to be excluded from limitation computation for seizure proceedings.

Court Disposition

Criminal Appeal No. 476/1986 allowed; other cases dismissed; no costs for appeal, costs to Union of India for others

Orders

  • Respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 476 of 1986 are not entitled to presence of lawyer during interrogation under FERA or Customs Act.
  • Entire period for which cases remained pending in Supreme Court or High Courts shall be excluded from computation of period under s.110 Customs Act and other relevant provisions.