GOVERDHAN DASS BANSALversusSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) TH. SECRETARY
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1204
- Decided
- 22 October 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A revision petition cannot be admitted and disposed of by a cryptic, non‑reasoned order; such an order is procedurally improper and must be set aside with the matter remitted for fresh disposal.
Summary
The appellant, Goverdhan Dass Bansal, challenged a criminal conviction under the Food Adulteration Act, 1948, by filing a revision before the Delhi High Court. The High Court admitted the revision petition and disposed of it on the same day by issuing a cryptic, non‑reasoned order. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that such an order was procedurally improper. The Supreme Court held that a revision petition should not be admitted unless there are arguable points of law or fact, and that a court cannot dispose of a matter by a bare, unexplained order. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal with proper reasons. The decision underscores the requirement of reasoned orders in revision proceedings under criminal procedure.
Issues considered
- Whether a revision petition may be admitted and disposed of on the day of admission by a cryptic, non‑reasoned order
- Whether such an order violates principles of natural justice and procedural law
- Whether the High Court’s order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal
Subjects
Judgment
-.
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 307
\ GOVERDHAN DASS BANSAL A
,. ~ v.
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) TH. SECRETARY
(Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002.)
OCTOBER 22, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER, LOKESHWAR
SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
~
t Practice and procedure - Revision - Disposal of, on the
day of admission by cryptic and non-reasoned order - c
Propriety of - Held: Not proper- Since the court felt that there
was some arguable points, the revision petition was admitted
- If there was no substance, it should not have been admitted
- Thus, order of High Court set aside and matter remitted
back to it for fresh disposal - Judgment/Order - Revision - D
Food Adulteration Act, 1948.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 55 of 2002.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.4.2001 of the E
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 206
of 2001.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Prasanth P. and T. Harish Kumar
for the Appellant.
r- F
Ashok Bhan, Ahsa G. Nair, Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Criminal
307 H
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.