Trial courts cannot demand unrelated police statistics while scrutinizing a charge-sheet.

Three charge-sheets were filed in FIR Nos. 84/2025, 453/2025 and 386/2026, registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj South, alleging offences under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009.

Illicit liquor had been recovered from the respective accused, but the investigating agency was unable to identify or apprehend the alleged supplier despite efforts during investigation.

While taking note of the charge-sheets, the Trial Court issued notice to the concerned SHO, requiring a detailed, DCP-forwarded reply stating: (i) the total number of charge-sheets filed under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act from 1 January 2025; and (ii) the number of cases in which the source of illicit liquor had been traced and the supplier apprehended or joined investigation.

The SHO challenged these directions before the Sessions Court, but the revision petitions were dismissed on the ground that the orders were interlocutory. The SHO thereafter approached the High Court under the present petitions.

Whether the Trial Court was entitled to require the SHO to furnish general statistical information concerning other Section 33 Delhi Excise Act cases while considering the charge-sheets in the three matters before it.

Whether the Trial Court’s directions had a sufficient nexus with the investigation in the three cases and were necessary for determining whether further investigation should be ordered.

Whether, notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned notice, the Trial Court could direct further investigation to trace the alleged source and supplier of the illicit liquor.

The Court applied Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, under which the underlying prosecutions had been instituted.

It further recognised the settled procedural principle that a Magistrate has ample power to direct further investigation where the Court is not satisfied with the final police report or considers the investigation deficient.

However, the exercise of that power must remain connected to the investigation of the particular case; the Trial Court cannot embark upon an unrelated or general inquiry by seeking information having no demonstrated bearing on the matters before it.

The High Court accepted that the Trial Court could, if necessary, require further investigation aimed at identifying the source and supplier of the illicit liquor.

Nevertheless, the direction requiring consolidated statistics regarding all Section 33 cases filed during a specified period, and the number of cases in which suppliers had been traced, did not materially assist the adjudication of the three charge-sheets.

The Trial Court had neither recorded a specific finding of negligence or deliberate omission by the investigating agency nor explained how the proposed statistical information would advance the investigation in the cases before it.

Although the objective of ensuring effective investigation was considered laudable, the Court held that the Trial Court had exceeded what was procedurally warranted in its “over-anxiety to do justice”.

The Trial Court remained at liberty to direct the investigating agency to conduct further investigation, if necessary, for tracing the alleged source and supplier in the individual cases.

All three petitions and the pending applications were disposed of accordingly.