Goverdhan Dass Bansal v. State (Delhi Administration) The Secretary
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- Dr. Arijit Pasayat
- C.K. Thakker
- Lokeshwar Singh Panta
- Judgment Date
- 2008-10-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- High Court order set aside and matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits.
- Final Disposition
- High Court order set aside and remitted to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Goverdhan Dass Bansal
Respondents
- State (Delhi Administration) The Secretary (Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2002)
- Delhi Administration]
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
- • Prasanth P.
- • T. Harish Kumar
Counsels for Respondents
- • Ashok Bhan
- • Ahsa G. Nair
- • Anil Katiyar
- • D.S. Mahra
Case Synopsis & Summary
This criminal appeal challenges a Delhi High Court revision order under the Food Adulteration Act, 1948. Goverdhan Dass Bansal, the appellant, contends that the High Court committed impropriety by disposing of the revision on admission without a substantive, reasoned examination of merits. The Supreme Court notes that in revision proceedings, particularly under the Act, the court should refrain from cryptic, non‑reasoned orders and must ensure that an admitted revision has arguable substance worthy of adjudication. The record shows that the High Court admitted the revision petition, apparently finding some arguable points, while the merits could have been inconclusive. The Court holds that if there is no substance to the challenge, admission of the revision would be improper and a cryptic disposal cannot substitute for proper reasoning. Accordingly, the High Court’s order adverse to the appellant is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits. The appellant is represented by Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., with Prasanth P. and T. Harish Kumar, and the respondent by Ashok Bhan, Ahsa G. Nair, Anil Katiyar and D.S. Mahra. The judgment clarifies the procedural propriety of revision practice under the Act and emphasizes that admissions, while necessary for procedural efficiency, must be accompanied by meaningful, reasoned orders.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
/null
Contentions of Respondents
/null
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Goverdhan Dass Bansal v. State (Delhi Administration) The Secretary and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.