9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality and propriety of an ad-interim order dated December 11, 1985 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. 2. Observations made by the learned Judges prejudging the issues involved in the prosecution launched against the respondents. 3. Granting of the impugned order directing release of seized goods without affording an opportunity to the State Government. 4. Prejudging the whole issue before the learned Single Judge and foreclosing the trial of the respondents. 5. Disapproval of the practice prevailing in the High Court of granting ad-interim orders with far-reaching consequences. Analysis: The Supreme Court judgment addressed the legality and propriety of an ad-interim order passed by the Calcutta High Court. The issue revolved around the release of seized tin plates worth nearly about &8377; 60 lakhs. The Division Bench directed the release of the goods without proper consideration of the State Government's arguments. The learned Judges' observations prejudged the prosecution launched against the respondents, creating concerns about the fairness of the trial process. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach, emphasizing the need for circumspection in granting such ad-interim orders. The Supreme Court highlighted the seriousness of the charges against the respondents and the importance of due process in handling cases involving alleged offences under various legal provisions. The judgment underscored the need for a fair trial and the avoidance of prejudgment before the appropriate judicial authority. The Court expressed disappointment in the High Court's decision to release the seized goods without adequate security or consideration of the State Government's position, emphasizing the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring a just legal process. Furthermore, the Supreme Court referenced previous decisions to emphasize the negative impact of granting ad-interim orders without proper consideration of all relevant factors. The judgment cited instances where such orders had adverse effects on public revenue, administrative processes, and overall public interest. The Court reiterated the importance of balancing various considerations, including the public interest, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience, when deciding on ad-interim orders. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's order and restoring the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Court directed the High Court to take immediate steps to recover the seized property from the respondents and imposed costs on the respondents. The judgment served as a reminder of the need for caution and restraint in granting ad-interim orders, emphasizing the broader implications of such decisions on the legal system and public interest.
|
