STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO.

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 25-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 643 : 2023 INSC 773
643
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
v.
M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO.
(Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2011)
AUGUST 25, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Writ petition was fi led by respondent against 
the illegal sealing of its shop by the offi  cers of Department of Excise and 
Taxation. While disposing off  the petition, High Court whether justifi ed 
in passing the impugned directions for registering criminal investigation 
against the Assistant Excise and Taxation, Commissioner, holding that he 
had fi led an affi  davit taking a false defence.
Practice and Procedure – Adverse remarks – Expunction of:
Held : Remarks adverse in nature, should not be passed in ordinary 
circumstances, or unless absolutely necessary for proper adjudication of 
the case at hand – Impugned directions were passed upon an incorrect and 
erroneous appreciation of the record – The record does not support the prime 
facie view taken in regard to ante-dating or interpolation of the despatch 
register – The register records multiple entries in diff erent hand, script, and 
language – There is neither any cutting, overwriting nor any interpolation – 
A glance at the relevant page of the despatch register makes it clear that the 
entry at the said page starts from Sl No.2026 and ends at Sl No.2043 and 
the despatch of the communication in question to the respondent falls at Sl 
No. 2032 which is in the middle of the page – Therefore, the question of any 
interpolation/tampering does not arise – The concerned Offi  cer was not to be 
benefi tted in any manner in ante-dating the communication dtd.21.10.2010, 
as the said date was still beyond the period of 10 days initially granted by 
the High Court to unseal the premises of the respondent, vide order dtd. 
27.09.2010 – Impugned directions totally misplaced, more so, when the 
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
endeavour of the Offi  cer was to bring the off enders to book and save evasion 
of duty, mandatorily required to be paid by the assessee – Observation made 
and the directions issued by the High Court vide impugned order, expunged 
– Proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, if any, including the FIR stand 
closed with immediate eff ect. [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 20 and 21]
Practice and Procedure – Adverse remarks – Tests laid down in 
State of UP v. Mohammad Naim (four-Judge Bench) – Non-fulfi lment of:
Held : Order of the High Court does not qualify the tests laid down by 
this Court in State of UP v. Mohammad Naim in regards to passing remarks 
against a person, whose conduct is being scrutinised – Neither was the 
offi  cer made party to the dispute, nor was he given an opportunity to show 
cause, and further, nothing on record refl ected the offi  cer holding an animus 
against the respondent, before such adverse directions were passed against 
him – Remarks by a court should at all times be governed by the principles 
of justice, fair play and restraint – Words employed should refl ect sobriety, 
moderation and reserve – Impugned directions issued by the High Court in 
registration of criminal investigation against an offi  cer against the settled 
principles of law have a demoralizing eff ect on the well-meaning offi  cers 
of the State. [Paras 14, 16, 18.2 and 20]
Practice and Procedure – Adverse remarks – Power to expunge – 
Exercise of, by the High Court and Supreme Court – Discussed.[Paras 
19.1-19.3.1]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of UP v. Mohammad Naim AIR 1964 SC 703 : [1964] SCR 
363 – relied on.
R. K. Lakshmanan v. A. K. Srinivasan (1975) 2 SCC 466 : [1976] 1 SCR 
204; S. K. Viswambaran v. E. Koyakunju (1987) 2 SCC 109 : [1987] 2 SCR 
501; Samya Seet v. Shambhu Sarkar (2005) 6 SCC 767 : [2005] 2 Suppl. 
SCR 686; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 
12 SCC 689 : [2011] 11 SCR 678; K. G. Shanti v. United Indian Insurance 
Co. Ltd and Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 511; Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar
(1986) 2 SCC 569 : [1986] 2 SCR 470; Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa 
(1995) 4 Suppl. SCC 169 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 333; A. M. Mathur v. 
645
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. v. 
M/S. SHIKHA TRADING CO.
Pramod Kumar Gupta (1990) 2 SCC 533 : [1990] 2 SCR 110; Shivajirao 
Nilangekar Patil v. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 : [1987] 1 
SCR 458; Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1 : [1964] 
SCR 336; Panchanan Banerji v. Upendra Nath Bhattacharji AIR 1927 All 
193; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.