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.
New Delhi, October 22, 2008.