Exercise of discretion

Federal Board of Revenue cannot, on the basis of its own subjective assessment, grant an extension for however long a period it thinks fit

Matter must, and if it comes before a Court, certainly has to be looked at objectively

If the period is excessive (in the sense that it is not "appropriate" within the frame of the section) it may be declared to be unlawful and quashed.

Federal Board of Revenue cannot, on the basis of its own subjective assessment, grant an extension for however long a period it thinks fit

Matter must, and if it comes before a Court, certainly has to be looked at objectively

If the period is excessive (in the sense that it is not "appropriate" within the frame of the section) it may be declared to be unlawful and quashed.

Right of accused to be released on bail under Ss. 496 & 497, Cr.P.C., one thing is common and sine qua non in both the provisions, that is, the court exercising discretion through a judicial order granting bail to him when he either appears himself or is brought before it

Under S.496, Cr.P.C. dealing with bailable offences, such discretion is exercised in favour of accused under the influence of law itself

In non-bailable offence, such discretion, be it the first category or the second one, is not automatically generated in favour of accused on account of his right to it but is contingent upon fulfillment of certain conditions, which include, among others, a compulsory notice to prosecution, resultant adjudication to determine existence or otherwise of reasonable material/grounds against him, exercise of discretion by Court in favour of accused in the form of judicial order, reasons for doing so, and its compliance by accused.

Government functionaries are expected to use the discretionary powers in such a way that the person(s) against whom that discretion is exercised faces certain appreciable disadvantages which he would not have faced otherwise as improper use of discretionary powers can lead to discrimination.

Exercise of discretion by Commission is guided/determined by facts and circumstances of case but has to be exercised in good faith, without any bias, prejudice or ulterior motives.

Discretion under S. 497, Cr.P.C. could not be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the court was satisfied that such a charge appeared to be false or groundless.

Law did not permit an authority to exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Goods imported in the present case neither fell within the category of S.15 nor within any notification issued under S.16 of the Customs Act, 1969

Sections 32 & 32A of Customs Act, 1969 were attracted in the present case, for which Federal Board of Revenue was not empowered to issue notification regarding fixation of pitch of fine under S.181 of Customs Act, 1969

Legislature intentionally left the imposition of fine on the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority who had to use such discretion sparingly and in the benefit of tax payer.

Exercise under S. 497, Cr.P.C. could not be used with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the court at the very outset was satisfied that such a charge appeared to be false or groundless.

If there was no yardstick before the Justice of Peace, he would not be able to make an appropriate order in the case brought before him under the provisions of S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C., which had provided alternate and additional forum for redressal of grievance of public-at-large; keeping in view the complaints regarding non-cooperation of the Police

Forum of the Justice of Peace had to proceed under S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C., and had to keep in mind certain principles for making an 'appropriate order'

If there was no yardstick and principles provided by the statute for exercising the authority by Justice of Peace, then it would not only be impossible for the forum to make appropriate order while exercising discretion, but would also be difficult for the superior forum/court to determine, whether discretion was exercised judicially, fairly or suggest extraneous consideration

Provisions of S.154, Cr.P.C., in fact controlled the discretion of Justice of Peace, which had been vested upon him

Expression "every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence", had been used in S.154, Cr.P.C.

Word "relating" was important and significant, not only in order to settle the controversy in the present case, but in all cases which were brought before the Police or before the Justice of Peace

Information, put either before the officer incharge of a Police Station, or the Justice of Peace, should provide information pertaining to the commission of a cognizable offence

Requirement of S.154, Cr.P.C. was not that there must be information regarding actual commission of cognizable offence

Allegations contained in application made by complainant were to be examined, but not in depth and detail to avoid prejudice to the case of any of the parties during the course of investigation or trial.

Grant or refusal of bail was totally a discretionary relief but in the offenses punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years the court had to exercise its discretion for refusal of bail firstly on the ground that there was likelihood of abscondence of accused, secondly, there was apprehension of accused tampering with prosecution evidence, thirdly, there was danger of offense being repeated and lastly, where the accused was a previous convict

Accused was resident of province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and there was every possibility of his being abscondence if released on bail

Charge against accused was heinous in nature and in such like cases of public tranquility court should limit itself to exercise its discretion for grant of bail

Bail was dismissed in circumstances.

If a person or a group of persons was denied an equal right being extended to and enjoyed by others positioned in the similar situation, it would be discrimination

Discrimination could not be without an element of unfavorable bias which had to be proved through concrete and solid evidence

Mere assertions that an authority had not exercised discretion fairly, justly and equitably without placing incriminating material on record would not bring the act of discretion to be counted discrimination

Discretion would become an act of discrimination only when it was improbable, vacillating or erratic exercise or abuse of discretionary authority

Differentiation and inequality of treatment per se would not tantamount to discrimination unless it was shown to be based on no reason or it was proved to be capricious or arbitrary.

Person on whom is vested a discretion, must exercise such discretion upon reasonable grounds and such discretion did not empower such a person to do what he liked merely because he was minded to do so

Such a person should not do as he likes, but must do what he ought to do and, also must use reason to ascertain and follow the proper and just course.

Subjective assessment did not empower or grant a licence to a public authority to exercise discretion without first structuring it.

Provisions of S.497 & 426, Cr.P.C. were analogous provisions and in the absence of any guideline, the principles which governed S.497, Cr.P.C. might guide the exercise of discretion under S.426, Cr.P.C.

Authorities could not be allowed to exercise discretion at their whims, sweet will or in an arbitrary manner, rather they were bound to act fairly and justly.