Dismissed

Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries

Supreme Court27 Jul 19791979 INSC 128 · [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1341979 INSC 128

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court held that High Courts must be extremely circumspect when granting interim or final relief under Article 226 during the pendency of criminal investigations to avoid hampering the inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Special Leave Petition dismissed with observations that High Courts must be extremely circumspect in granting relief during criminal investigations.

What the court decided

Assistant Collector of Central Excise versus… — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (1980)

134

• '

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

¶6

¶7

JAINSON HOSIERY INDUSTRIES

¶8

July 27, 1979

¶9

¶10

[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.]

¶11

Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 226-Exercise of jurisdiction underCourts to be extremely circu1nspect in granting relief during th~ pendency of criminal investigations.

¶12

HELD : The High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of c the Constitut:on must have r'egard 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-Hl

¶13

The investigation of a criminal offence i~ a very sensitive phase where the investigating authority has to collect evidence from all odd corners and anyD thing that is likely to thwart its course may inhibit the interests of juitic~. [135A]

¶14

Courts must be very careful to see that every condition or need that the investig:i.t.or points out as essential for discharging hi~ investigative functions, !hould 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]

¶15

CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4059 of 1979.

¶16

¶17

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, Add!. Sol. Genl. of India and Girish Chandra for the Petitioner.

¶18

The Order of the Court was delivered by

¶19

¶20

¶21

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 haw 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

¶22

COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE V. JAINSON HOSIERY 135

¶23

' j

¶24

(Krishna Iyer, !.)

¶25

:eases-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 inv•cstigation 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 whe'n, during the investigation, any relief interim or final, which has a tendency to slow down -or otherwi&, hamper the investigation, is sought. ·

¶26

In ·the present case, the requirements that the prosecution put forward were readily granted by the High Court and the '.med for the <:ontainers which bear tell-tale testimony necessary for the investigation does not appear to have bc-'n 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 inter·vene except where manifest injustice cries for the Order of the Court.

With these observations, we dismiss the Petition.

¶31

:N.V.K.

¶32

Petition dismissed.

¶33

10-475SCI/79

Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devki Alias Kala versus the State of Haryana

Organo Chemical Industries & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors.

Dharambir and Anr. versus State of U.P.

Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran versus State of Kerala and Ors.

Baselius Mar Thoma Mathews & Ors. versus Paulose Mar Athanasius &. Ors.

Inderjeet versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.