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

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 14-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

'-r 
POOLPANDI ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND 
OTHERS ETC. ETC. 
MAY 14, 1992 
B 
(LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.S. VERMA AND YOGESHWAR 
DAYAL, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962/Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: 
c 
-
Ss. 107, 108, 110139, 4()--,[nvestigation-lnte"ogation of person con~ 
cemed-Assistance of lawyer-Whether permissible. 
r 
Seizure of goods and documents-Period of /imitation-Time taken in 
litigation be/ ore High Court or Supreme Court to be excluded from computa-
ti on. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 20(3), 21-Person accused of any offence-Who is: lntemJga-
tion of person concerned during investigation under Customs Act or 
E 
~ 
FERA-Refusal of assistance of lawyer-Whether violative of. 
Words and phrases: 
'Just, fair and reasonable test'-Application of. 
The question whether a person is entitled to the aid of a counsel when F 
he is questioned during investigation under the provisions of the Customs 
Act, 1962 or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, was decided by 
the Delhi High Court* against the Department whereas the Madras High 
Court* took* the opposite view. Both the views were challenged in the two 
appeals by special leave before this Court. Several writ petitions were also G 
tiled before this Court by some persons concerned. 
, 
-( 
It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners and the appellants 
(in the appeal against thejudgment of the Madras High Court) that at the 
time of interrogation of a person during the investigation under -the 
provisions of Customs Acts or the FERA, there being no prohibition under H 
247 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) .3 S.C.R. 
A 
the two Acts, he is entitled to the assistance of a lawyer, and to deny him 
·y . 
such a right would be violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution;, and 
that in view of the Constitutional protection of life and personal liberty 
guaranteed by Article 21, the person concerned is 'entitled to a lawyer 
during questioning by the Department. 
B 
On behalf of the Department it was contended that there is a 
c 
distinction between an accused in a criminal case and a person called for 
interrogation under the FERA anci Customs Act, and the protection under 
Article 20(3) which may be available to an accused cannot be expanded to 
other persons. 
Allowing the appeal of the Department and dismissing the other 
cases, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1.The persons being interrogated during investigation 
under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 or the Foreign Exchange 
"-t 
D 
Regulation Act, 1973 are not accused within the meaning of Article 20(3) 
E 
of the Constitution and the right reserved by the Constitution in favour of 
accused persons cannot be expanded to be enjoyed by others. [p 257 A] 
Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 461, 
followed. 
*K. T. Advani v. The State : 1985 Crl.L.J. 1325, overruled. 
**Poolpandi etc. v. Superintendent, Central Excise (W.P. Nos. 4690-
91/87, decided by Madras High Court on 23.6.1987), approved. 
F 
1.2 Clause (3) of Article 20 of the C1>nstitution declares that no 
person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against 
himself. It does not refer to the hypothetical person who may in the future 
be discovered to have been guilty of some offence. [p. 252 A] 
G 
1.3 In order that the guarantee against testimonial compulsion 
incorporated in Article 20(3) may be claimed by a person, it has to be 
established that when he made the statement he was a person accused of 
an offence. [p. 252 CJ 
Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 2 SCR 461 
H and 11/ias v. Collector of Customs, Madras, (1969) 2 SCR 613, followed. 
-· 
POOLP ANDI v. SUPDT. CENTRAL EXCISE 
249 
Raman/al Bhogilal Shah and another v. D.K Guha anti Ors., [1973] A 
1 sec 696, referred to. 
Nandini Satpathy v. Dani (P.L.) and Anr., [1978] 3 SCR 608, inap· 
plicable. 
2.1 Applying the 'just, fair and reasonable test', it can not be said B 
that calling a person away from his own house and questioning him in the 
atmosphere of the customs office without the assistance of his lawyer or 
his friends either violates his constitutional right under Article 21 or 
amounts to mental torture. [p. 257 B C; FJ 
2.2 The purpose of the enquiry under the Customs Act and the other 
similar statutes will be completely frustrated if the whims of the persons 
in possession of useful information for the departments are allowed to 
prevail. For achieving the object of suc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.