Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. if the legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under section 44 of the code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code. in terms of section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. language of this provision clearly suggested that the police officer can arrest a person without an order from the magistrate. thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of section 156(3) of the code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically.....orderkania, j.1. there is no substance in this appeal. the appeal is directed against the interim relief granted by pendse, j. by his order dated 6th september 1984. in effect, by the said order, the appellants were restrained from implementing the show cause notice dated 25th august 1984, a copy of which has been annexed as exhibit 'f' to the petition. the petition itself is filed in order to challenge the said show cause notice, and hence allowing the show cause notice to be implemented would render the petition infructuous. it is curious that when the petition reached hearing before bharucha, j. on 11th december 1984, instead of proceeding with the hearing of the petition, the appellants applied for and obtained an adjournment. needless to say, no affidavit in reply was filed uptil then nor has such an affidavit been filed till today prima facie, the show cause notice seems to have been issued without any proper application of mind. as pointed out by mrs. sujata manohar, j. in her order dated 26th june 1984 in chamber summons no. 359 of 1984 in writ petition no. 2748 of 1983 in this court, beef tallow was allowed to be imported under open general licence (ogl) up to 5th june.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Kania, J.

1. There is no substance in this appeal. The appeal is directed against the interim relief granted by Pendse, J. by his order dated 6th September 1984. In effect, by the said order, the appellants were restrained from implementing the show cause notice dated 25th August 1984, a copy of which has been annexed as Exhibit 'F' to the petition. The petition itself is filed in order to challenge the said show cause notice, and hence allowing the show cause notice to be implemented would render the petition infructuous. It is curious that when the petition reached hearing before Bharucha, J. on 11th December 1984, instead of proceeding with the hearing of the petition, the appellants applied for and obtained an adjournment. Needless to say, no affidavit in reply was filed uptil then nor has such an affidavit been filed till today Prima facie, the show cause notice seems to have been issued without any proper application of mind. As pointed out by Mrs. Sujata Manohar, J. in her order dated 26th June 1984 in Chamber Summons No. 359 of 1984 in Writ Petition No. 2748 of 1983 in this Court, beef tallow was allowed to be imported under Open General Licence (OGL) up to 5th June 1981, On that day, a notification was issued directing that the imports of the said item would be canalised through the State Trading Corporation. The orders passed by the Government thereafter have made it clear that the requirement of canalisation would not apply where firm contracts had been placed and letters of credit -opened before 5th June 1981. Even after 5th June 1981, beef tallow, which had been imported otherwise than through State Trading Corporation, was allowed to be cleared on payment of fine if the licences had been issued after 5th June 1981 and without payment of such fine if the licences were of an earlier date. In view of this, prima facie the allegations in paragraph 1 of the said show cause notice seem to be of no relevance at all. The same is the position regarding the allegations made in paragraph 2 of the said show cause notice as the mere purchase, on high sea sales basis, of the beef tallow, as set out in that paragraph, cannot lead to an inference of abetment unless some more material is disclosed.

2. In view of this, allowing the appellants to implement the show cause notice would be an exercise in futility. Moreover, that would render the petition infructuous.