Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Food Adulteration Case Due to Jurisdictional Error. The Single Judge's decision was deemed a nullity as it lacked the requisite jurisdiction under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of the appellants for an offence under Section 7(1) read with Sections 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The acquittal was rendered by a lower court, and the State's appeal was heard by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, which was contrary to the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, that mandated such appeals be heard by a Division Bench. The Supreme Court examined whether the Single Judge had the authority to decide the appeal and concluded that the judgment rendered by the Single Judge was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the appellants had a right to be heard by a Division Bench, and this right could not be denied without amending the rules. The Court held that even a correct decision made by an incorrect forum is non-existent in the eyes of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order, and remanded the case to the High Court for a proper hearing by a Division Bench, ensuring both parties had the opportunity to present their case (Paras 1006-1008).

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Nullity of Judgment - Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Rule 1 and Rule 2-II(e) - A Single Judge's decision in a matter that should have been heard by a Division Bench is a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. The appellants were entitled to a hearing by at least two Judges, and denying this right is arbitrary and discriminatory. Held that the judgment of the Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded for hearing by a Division Bench (Paras 1006-1007).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the decision of a Single Judge in a matter required to be decided by a Division Bench was a nullity.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge, and remanded the matter to the High Court for hearing by a Division Bench.

Law Points

  • jurisdiction
  • nullity
  • Division Bench requirement
  • acquittal appeal
  • Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1986 LawText (SC) (09) 21

Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 1986

1986-09-30

Thakkar, M.P., Singh, K.N.

1987 AIR 535, 1986 SCR (3) 1004, 1986 SCC (4) 436, JT 1986 653, 1986 SCALE (2) 605

M.C. Bhandare, Miss C.K. Sucharita, A.S. Bhasme, A.M. Khamwilka

Pandurang & Ors.

State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against acquittal in a food adulteration case

Remedy Sought

State sought to challenge the acquittal of the appellants

Filing Reason

Appeal filed due to the lower court's acquittal of the appellants

Previous Decisions

Lower court acquitted the appellants of the charges under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

Issues

Jurisdiction of the Single Judge Validity of the judgment rendered by the Single Judge

Submissions/Arguments

The State argued that the Single Judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appellants contended that they were entitled to a hearing by a Division Bench.

Ratio Decidendi

A judgment rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and has no legal effect.

Judgment Excerpts

When a matter required to be decided by a Division Bench of the High Court is decided by a Single Judge, the judgment would be a nullity. Even a ’right’ decision by a ’wrong’ forum is no decision.

Procedural History

The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the acquittal of the appellants, which was heard by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Section 7(1), Section 16, Section 17
  • Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960: Rule 1, Rule 2-II(e)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reverses High Court Decision on Suit for Permanent Injunction - Title Dispute Not a Bar to Injunction Suit. The Court held that a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter can be maintainable even when title is disputed, depending on th...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Licensee Eviction Case, Holds Civil Court Lacks Jurisdiction. Suit by Licensor Against Gratuitous Licensee Must Be Filed Before Small Causes Court Under Section 41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.