A
B
c
D
134
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
v.
JAINSON HOSIERY INDUSTRIES
July 27, 1979
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 226-Exercise of jurisdiction
under-
Courts to be extremely circu1nspect in granting relief during th~ pendency of
criminal investigations.
HELD : The High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of
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
The investigation of a criminal offence i~ a very sensitive phase where the
investigating authority has to collect evidence from all odd corners and any-
thing that is likely to thwart its course may inhibit the
interests of
juitic~.
[135A]
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
E
injustice cries for its Order. [135C-D]
F
G
H
CML 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, Add!. 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 Constitu-
tion is a wrong exercise of its jurisdiction because there is an alter-
native 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
•
'
'
j
COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE V. JAINSON HOSIERY
135
(Krishna Iyer, !.)
: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 investi-
gation, any relief interim or final, which has a tendency to slow down
-or otherwi&, 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 '.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 investi-
gator 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.
:N.V.K.
Petition dismissed.
10-475SCI/79
B'
c
D
Lex