CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2008 › Govardhan Dass Bansal v. State (delhi Administration)th.secr

Govardhan Dass Bansal v. State (delhi Administration)th.secretary

Supreme Court of India · 22 October 2008 · [2008] 15 S.C.R. 307

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
22 October 2008
Case no.
Crl.A. No. 55 of 2002
Reported as
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 307
Result
Disposed of
Bench
Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker, Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

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

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.

Ask CaseMinister about Govardhan Dass Bansal v. State (delhi Administration)th.secretary

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp