Supreme Court of India
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus JAINSON HOSIERY INDUSTRIES
- Decided
- 27 July 1979
- Judges listed
- V.R. KRISHNA IYER
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1980] 1 S.C.R. 134 · 1979 INSC 128
- Also cited as
- (1979) 4 SCC 22
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
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
p. 134, margin F
135
p. 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 investigation, any relief interim or final, which has a tendency to slow down -or otherwi&, hamper the investigation, is sought. ·
p. 135
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.
p. 135, margin C
With these observations, we dismiss the Petition. :N.V.K. Petition dismissed.
p. 135, margin D
10-475SCI/79
p. 135, margin D