T.S. Tulsi, Addl.
476 of 1986, the appellant in Criminal Appeals No.
301 302 of 1987 and the petitioners in the other cases are entitled to the presence of their lawyers when they are questioned during the investigation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 hereinafter referred as to FERA .
There is difference of opinion between the High Courts on this issue, the Delhi High Court in the judgment reported in 1985 Crl.
Law Journal at page 1325 under challenge in Criminal Appeal No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.1987 of the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos.
476 of 1986 holding against the revenue, and the Madras High Court taking the opposite view in its judgement impugned in Criminal Appeals No.
301 302 of 1987.
His primary duty is to prevent smuggling and to recover duties of customs when companylecting evidence in respect of smuggling against a person suspected of infringing the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, he is number accusing the person of any offence punishable at a trial before a Magistrate.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
476/86 Writ Petitions Crl.
350 519, 520 21, 571 72, and 623 of 1989 235, 236, 795, 847, 848, 1215, 1219, 1257, 1824, 1864 1887/1990 7, 26, 27, 28, 60, 107, 108, 717, 1336, 1390 and 1392 of 1991.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. The companymon question arising in these cases is whether the respondent in Criminal Appeal No.
WITH Criminal Appeal Nos.
Solicitor General, H.N. Salve, U.R. Lalit, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Monika Mohil, Ms. Monika Lal, A. Subba Rao, Ms. Sushma Suri, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. A Subhashini, K.K. Mani, Sumeet Kachwaha and B. Kumar for the appearing parties.
4690/87 and 4691 of 1987.
