Ravindra Singh and Anil Kumar Agarwal, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.S. Mishra, senior advocate assisted by Sri A.G. Karunakar and Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and Sri Bal Mukund appearing for Union of India. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Yogesh Kumar Pandey with a prayer to quash the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 160, Cr.P.C. in respect of the F.I.R. No. R.C. 0062012A0015 dated 15.5.2012 under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. C.B.I., A.C.B. Lucknow.
(2.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that: (i) The impugned notice has issued the C.B.I. which was having no jurisdiction to issue the same, it was not competent to register the complaint as F.I.R. against the private individuals and not against the Central Government or its employees. (ii) Under Articles 20(1), 21, 22(1) and (3) Constitution of India as permits the petitioner to appear as the witness alongwith the lawyer of his choice. (iii) The philosophy underlying Articles 20(1), 21, 22(1) and (3) of the Constitution of India is that the right to afford the assistance of a counsel of his choice even at the stage of custodial Interrogation cannot be allowed to be circumvented. (iv) The access to a lawyer at the stage of interrogation serves as the sort of counter weight to the atmosphere that surrounds and gives the accused/witness certain amount of guidance as to his rights and obligations of police. (v) Because the lawyer's presence given pave the way to some extent to ease himself to a mental tension and trauma to witness. The impugned notice under Section 160, Cr.P.C. is illegal, the same may be quashed. In case it is not quashed the petitioner may be permitted to appear before C.B.I. for interrogation alongwith the lawyer of his choice because the petitioner is having the reasonable apprehension of torturing the compelling the witnesses to give evidence at the choice of Investigating Officer of the C.B.I. If the protection is not provided to the petitioner the petitioner may suffer by torture and the fair investigation may not be ensured.
(3.) IN support of the submission the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Nandinisatpathy v. P.S. Dani,, 1978 LAWS (SC) 4 - -11, referring the Section 160, Cr.P.C. and Articles 20(3) and 21(1) of the Constitution of India.;