Jurisdictional defect in acquittal appeal hearing renders a Single Judge's decision void and ineffective in law.

Appellate rules requiring an acquittal appeal in a Prevention of Food Adulteration Act matter to be heard by a Division Bench were treated as mandatory, so a Single Judge lacked competence to decide it. A determination made by a forum without jurisdiction was held to be ineffective in law and not saved by the correctness of the result on merits, because the accused had a procedural right to hearing before the prescribed bench. The judgment was therefore described as a nullity.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against acquittal required, under the High Court rules, to be heard by a Division Bench could validly be decided by a Single Judge, and whether the resulting conviction and sentence were a nullity.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an acquittal in a prosecution for offences punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The governing appellate rules provided that appeals against acquittal in such cases, where the offence was punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, were to be heard by a Division Bench. A Single Judge, therefore, lacked competence to hear and decide the matter. A decision rendered by a forum without jurisdiction is not cured by the correctness of the result on merits, because the accused had a procedural right to have the appeal heard by the forum prescribed by the rules. The infirmity was not a mere irregularity but a total lack of jurisdiction, rendering the order ineffective in law.

Conclusion: The Single Judge's judgment was a nullity and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for hearing by a Division Bench in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision rendered by a court or judge lacking jurisdiction under the applicable procedural rules is void and a nullity, even if it may be correct on the merits.

---