AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img




Govardhan Dass Bansal Vs. State (Delhi Administration)Th.Secretary [2008] INSC 1810 (22 October 2008)

Judgment

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)

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.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys