9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when there is an alternative statutory remedy under the Central Excise Act for relief when goods are seized. 2. Granting of reliefs by High Courts during the pendency of criminal investigations and the impact on the investigation process. Judgment Summary: 1. The additional Solicitor General representing the Petitioner, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, contended that the High Court's Order under Article 226 of the Constitution was an incorrect exercise of jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Central Excise Act for seized goods. The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts must consider established principles for exercising writ jurisdiction and should only intervene if the normal statutory remedy is expected to be unduly delayed or challenging to provide prompt relief. The Court cautioned against granting reliefs, especially during criminal investigations, as it could impede the investigative process. The Court advised High Courts to exercise extreme caution in such situations to avoid hindering the interests of justice. The judgment highlighted the importance of not impeding the investigative process during criminal proceedings. 2. In the specific case, the High Court readily granted the prosecution's requests without considering the necessity of certain containers crucial for the investigation. The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of fulfilling the investigator's essential needs during the investigative process, unless unreasonable. The Court emphasized that Courts should be cautious when intervening during investigations, except in cases of manifest injustice. The judgment concluded by dismissing the petition, emphasizing the need to carefully consider the impact of Court orders on the investigative process and ensuring that investigative functions are not hindered during criminal investigations.
|
