Supreme Court of India
Govardhan Dass Bansal vs State (Delhi ... on 22 October, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 878, 2008 (14) SCC 499, 2008 AIR SCW 8193, 2008 (14) SCALE 175, 2009 (2) SCC(CRI) 848, 2009 FAJ 185, (2008) 69 ALLINDCAS 476 (ORI), (2008) 41 OCR 23, (2009) 1 CURCRIR 379, (2009) 1 GUJ LH 201, (2009) 42 OCR 200, (2008) 14 SCALE 175, (2009) 1 DLT(CRL) 734, (2009) 65 ALLCRIC 397, 2008 (62) ACC (SOC) 86 (ORI)
Author: Arijit Pasayat
Bench: Lokeshwar Singh Panta, C.K.Thakker, Arijit Pasayat
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 55 OF 2002
GOVERDHAN DASS BANSAL ... Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) TH. SECRETARY ... Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
Heard.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal revision No. 206/2001. The appellant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 16 of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (in short the 'Act'). The allegation was that on 13.10.1988 the Food Inspector found that the appellant was selling adulterated chilly powder. On that basis, sample which was collected was sent to the public analyst and it was found that percentage of Ash insoluble in dilute HCL was at 4.2% as against the permissible limit of 1.35%. The trial court found the appellant guilty. In appeal, the conclusion of the trial court was upheld. A criminal revision was filed before the High Court which was admitted. But on the day the appeal was admitted, the -2- revision petition was disposed of by a cryptic and practically non-reasoned order. That is not the way to dispose of a revision petition which has been admitted. If there was no substance, it should not have been admitted. Since it was admitted, the Court obviously felt that there was some arguable point. Thereafter to dismissed it without indicating any reason or basis is certainly not the proper way of disposal.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
It is stated that the appellant is continuing on bail pursuant to the order passed by this Court. The same shall continue till the disposal of the revision by the High Court. We make it clear that by granting this interim protection, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
...................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ....................J. (C.K.THAKKER) .....................J (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA) New Delhi, October 22, 2008.