Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

GOVERDHAN DASS BANSALversusSTATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) TH. SECRETARY

Citation
2008 INSC 1204
Decided
Disposal
Disposed off

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

Legislation cited

  • Food Adulteration Act, 1948

Subjects

  • revision
  • cryptic order
  • non‑reasoned order
  • procedural propriety
  • Supreme Court
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Food Adulteration Act, 1948
  • remand
  • natural justice

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
•


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.