http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAINSON HOSIERY INDUSTRIES

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1979

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: 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]

JUDGMENT:      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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. 136