Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JAINSON HOSIERY INDUSTRIES
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1979
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
DESAI, D.A.
KOSHAL, A.D.
CITATION:
1979 AIR 1889 1980 SCR (1) 134
1979 SCC (4) 22
CITATOR INFO :
E&D 1985 SC1147 (9)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 226-Exercise of
jurisdiction under-Courts to be extremely circumspect in
granting relief during the pendency of criminal
investigations.
HEADNOTE:
HELD: The High Court in exercising its jurisdiction
under Art. 226 of the Constitution must have regard to the
well established principles and unless it is satisfied that
the normal statutory remedy is likely to be too dilatory to
give relief, it should be loath to act under Art. 226. It
should be extremely circumspect in granting relief during
the pendency of criminal investigations. [134 G-H]
The investigation of a criminal offence is a very
sensitive phase where the investigating authority has to
collect evidence from all odd corners and anything that is
likely to thwart its course may inhibit the interests of
justice. [135A]
Courts must be very careful to see that every condition
or need that the investigator points out as essential for
discharging his investigative functions, should be readily
conceded unless plainly unreasonable. At the stage of
investigation it is risky for the court to intervene except
where manifest injustice cries for its Order. [135C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 4059 of 1979.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30-1-79 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 106 of
1979.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl. Sol. Genl. of India and Girish
Chandra for the Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. The Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the Petitioner, the Assistant Collector of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Central Excise, complains that the Order of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution is a wrong exercise of
its jurisdiction because there is an alternative statutory
remedy under the Central Excise Act for relief when goods
are seized. It is correct to say that the High Court must
have regard to the well established principles for the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction and unless it is satisfied
that the normal statutory remedy is likely to be too
dilatory or difficult to give reasonably quick relief, it
should be loath to act under Article 226. May be, in
exceptional
135
cases-the present one does not appear to be one-that extra-
ordinary power may be exercised. So it is right to point out
that the High Courts will be careful to be extremely
circumspect in granting these reliefs especially during the
pendency of criminal investigations. The investigation of a
criminal offence is a very sensitive phase where the
investigating authority has to collect evidence from all odd
corners and anything that is likely to thwart its course may
inhibit the interests of justice. All that we need say here
is that the High Courts will bear in mind the need for
extreme reluctance when, during the investigation, any
relief interim or final, which has a tendency to slow down
or otherwise hamper the investigation, is sought.
In the present case, the requirements that the
prosecution put forward were readily granted by the High
Court and the need for the containers which bear tell-tale
testimony necessary for the investigation does not appear to
have been pointed out to the High Court. We certainly agree
that even while releasing the goods the Courts must be very
careful to see that every condition or need that the
investigator points out as essential for discharging his
investigative functions, should be readily conceded by the
Court unless plainly unreasonable. After all, at the stage
of investigation it is risky for the Court to intervene
except where manifest injustice cries for the Order of the
Court.
With these observations, we dismiss the Petition.
N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
136