- (1.) Mr. M. S. Usgaocar, learned Senior Counsel, is in caveat. Leave granted.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) The appellant is substantively aggrieved by the order dated 11/7/1997 of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High court, which order has emphatically been reiterated in the impugned order dated 17/11/1997. By order dated 11/7/1997, the appellant was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on certain dates, requiring him to cooperate with the investigation, at the pain of forfeiting other benefits given to him. To this extent of the order, the appellant is not aggrieved. Besides, when being interrogated under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the appellant has been asked to refresh his memory and not evade questions by taking recourse to the plea of failure of memory, and give replies which must be direct and not evasive. To this part of the order, the appellant has objection and, in our view, validly. The appellant in terms is required to answer the questions put to him under Section 108 of the said Act and on his failure to do so, he attracts penalties known to law. If he takes recourse to the plea of failure of memory, that can well be recorded by the officer questioning him under the aforementioned provision. Necessary consequences and inferences drawnmay then follow. The appellant, in any event, could not be directed to compulsorily rake up his memory and give replies only in negatives or affirmatives which in the language couched by the learned Single Judge "must be direct and not evasive". The fact remains that the appellant has to be available as directed for interrogation and in whatever manner or way he responds to the questions, that would have to be recorded faithfully. And observations can well be made by the officer recording, pertaining to the demeanour of the appellant. Having clarified in this manner the orders of the learned Single Judge of the High court, we dispose of this appeal.;