Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Vs. Jainson Hosiery Industries [1979] INSC 126 (27 July 1979)
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
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]
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 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.
Back
