Court holds that Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by ordering SHO to provide broad statistical information unrelated to specific ongoing investigations under Delhi Excise Act, 2009
In a recent judgment dated August 24, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Manoj Jain, set aside certain directions issued by a Trial Court Magistrate that required the Station House Officer (SHO) of Vasant Kunj South Police Station to submit detailed statistical data relating to cases under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009. The petitions were filed by the SHO challenging the Magistrate's order which sought information on the total number of charge-sheets filed invoking Section 33 from January 1, 2025, and the number of cases where the source of illicit liquor was traced and suppliers apprehended.
The facts of the case involved three separate charge-sheets filed against accused persons for offences under Section 33 of the Delhi Excise Act. The police investigation had been thorough, but despite best efforts, the source and supplier of illicit liquor could not be traced due to the lack of concrete information. The Magistrate, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation and issued directions to the SHO for additional data, apparently to assess the overall investigation efficacy in similar cases.
The High Court observed that while a Magistrate has ample power to order further investigation if dissatisfied with a police final report, such directions must be connected to the specific investigation at hand. Ordering the production of unrelated statistical data without a clear nexus to the ongoing cases was held to be beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The Court noted that the Trial Court had not made any adverse findings of negligence or deliberate omission against the police and had not explained how the requested data would aid the ongoing investigations.
Justice Jain emphasized that although the Magistrate's intent to ensure justice was commendable, the method of seeking broad statistical information was unwarranted and an overreach. The Court quashed the impugned directions while allowing the Trial Court the liberty to issue appropriate directions for further investigation specifically related to the cases if necessary.
The judgment reinforces the principle that Magistrates must exercise their powers within the limits of jurisdiction and avoid extraneous inquiries unrelated to the facts of the case. It also underscores the importance of respecting the boundaries between judicial oversight and police investigation.
Bottom Line:
Directions issued by a Magistrate's Court to SHO for statistical data and information unrelated to specific ongoing investigations were held to exceed jurisdiction and were quashed.
Statutory provision(s):
Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Section 33
Parveen Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2971290
