9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Competence of a Single Judge to hear and decide an appeal requiring a Division Bench, jurisdiction under relevant rules of the High Court.
In the judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a learned Single Judge had the authority to hear and decide an appeal that should have been heard by a Division Bench, specifically in the context of an appeal by the State of Maharashtra challenging an order of acquittal under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. The Court highlighted the requirement for certain appeals to be heard by a Division Bench as per the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules for fair adjudication. The Court clarified that when a matter necessitates a Division Bench but is decided by a Single Judge, the judgment rendered is considered a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction, thereby denying the accused the right to a proper hearing by two Judges. The judgment underscored that even if the decision is correct on substance, it loses validity if rendered by an incompetent forum, emphasizing the significance of procedural compliance in upholding the rule of law. The Court cited a previous case to support its stance and ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge's order and remanding the matter to a Division Bench for proper adjudication in accordance with the law. The Court also criticized the High Court Registry for not recognizing the procedural error, leading to unnecessary wastage of court resources and emphasized the need for efficient case management in light of the backlog of cases burdening the judicial system.
|
