2018 (1) TMI 1528 - HC - Customs

Grant of interim protection - principles of judicial propriety - HELD THAT - The prayer for interim protection is rejected placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Others THE STATE OF TELANGANA VERSUS HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI AND ORS. 2017 (1) TMI 1683 - SUPREME COURT . It is difficult to appreciate as to how the said judgment would be applicable to the facts of the present case. No doubt Their Lordships have held that when the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. finds that no case is made out for interference it will not be proper for this Court to pass an order of restraint restraining the Investigating Agency from arresting the litigants. However in the preceding sentence itself Their Lordships observed that when this Court finds that taking into consideration the parameters of quashing and self-restraint a case is made out for exercising jurisdiction it may pass interim orders as are found apposite in law. One of the principles on which the Courts are required to function is judicial propriety. When several coordinate Benches of this Court have found prima facie substance in the challenge raised before this Court in our considered view it will be against judicial propriety to come to a different conclusion without hearing the Petition on merits. The Petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the investigations under DRI without following the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code - It is however made clear that the Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. The Petitioner is directed to remain present before the Respondent-Authority at 10.00 A.M. On 29th January 2018.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of judicial restraint in granting interim protection in criminal cases under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Application of judicial propriety in maintaining consistency in decisions across coordinate benches of the High Court.
- Consideration of legal precedent in granting interim protection during investigations.

Interpretation of Judicial Restraint:
The High Court addressed the issue of judicial restraint in granting interim protection during investigations under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the interim protection, citing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the need for judicial restraint. The Court acknowledged the principle but noted that if the Court finds a case for interference based on quashing parameters and self-restraint, it may pass interim orders as appropriate in law. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing judicial propriety with the need for a fair hearing before reaching a conclusion.

Application of Judicial Propriety:
The Court discussed the importance of judicial propriety in maintaining consistency across coordinate benches of the High Court. Despite the opposition to interim protection, the Court found that several benches had prima facie substance in the challenges raised, indicating a need for uniformity in decisions. The Court emphasized the obligation to hear the petition on its merits before deviating from the decisions of other benches. This approach aimed to uphold judicial propriety and ensure fairness in the legal process.

Consideration of Legal Precedent:
In considering legal precedent, the Court referred to a previous judgment and the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Relying on the precedent set in a specific case, the Court granted similar protection as earlier benches had provided. The Court cited the need to follow established legal principles and precedent, ensuring consistency and fairness in the application of the law. By granting interim protection based on legal precedent, the Court aimed to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of the petitioner during the investigation process.