ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 19.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. No.43132M/2007 whereby he directed the concerned officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to examine and record the evidence of the respondent at their office at Ludhiana. 3. A perusal of the record shows that on 9.8.2005, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence registered a case against Tarachand group of companies, on the allegation of misuse of advance licence scheme. Summons were issued to the respondent on 6.9.2006, 11.10.2006, 17.11.2006 and 5.12.2006 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’) for recording of his evidence at Ahmedabad because he was said to be one of the high sea sellers. As the respondent did not comply with the summons, proceedings were initiated against him under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The respondent also failed to comply with the summons issued by the concerned court. Therefore, arrest warrant was issued against him. The respondent challenged the same before City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. He also applied for anticipatory bail. By an order dated 25.2.2007, the Sessions Court rejected the respondent’s prayer for quashing the warrant, but granted him ten days time to appear before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the respondent filed Special Criminal Application No.1038/2007 before Gujarat High Court, which was dismissed on 31.10.2007. 4. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 43132-M/2007 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prayed that a direction be issued to the concerned officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to record his statement at Ludhiana. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and directed that the respondent be examined and his evidence be recorded at Ludhiana. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, respondent was summoned under Section 108 of the Act. A somewhat similar provision was considered by this Court in Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) Vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1988) 1 SCC 52 and it was held: "7. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, respondent was summoned under Section 108 of the Act. A somewhat similar provision was considered by this Court in Dukhishyam Benupani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) Vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1988) 1 SCC 52 and it was held: "7. It seems rather unusual that when the aggrieved party approached the High Court challenging the order passed by a subordinate court the High Court made the position worse for the aggrieved party. The officials of the Directorate are now injuncted by the Division Bench from arresting the respondent and the time and places for carrying out the interrogations were also fixed by the Division Bench. Such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation under a statute is uncalled for. We have no doubt that such type of interference would impede the even course of enquiry or investigation into the serious allegations now pending. For what purpose the Division Bench made such interference with the functions of the statutory authorities, which they are bound to exercise under law, is not discernible from the order under challenge. It is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law. It must be left to the investigating agency to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions to persons involved in such offences. A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual, (vide State rep. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma)." 6. Although, the learned Single Jude has referred to the aforementioned judgment, he has passed the impugned order without properly appreciating ratio thereof. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent made strenuous efforts to convince us that the impugned direction has been given by the learned Single Judge because of the poor health of the respondent and after taking note of the judgment of the High Court in Tar Balbir Singh v. Union of India and another 1992 (3) RCR (Criminal) 210, but we have not felt impressed and are not inclined to accept his statement because no material has been produced before this Court to show that due to illness it is impossible for the respondent to undertake journey from Ludhiana to Ahmedabad. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. 8. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence shall now be free to issue appropriate summons to the respondent for his appearance at an appropriate place. In case the respondent fails to comply with the summons, then the concerned officers shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.