Disputed identification and unexamined evidence led to setting aside the penalty order and remand for fresh consideration.

The penalty could not be sustained where the appellant's identification remained in dispute and the material evidence was not properly examined. The authority failed to deal with the specific challenge to the photograph shown to witnesses, the hospital record, and the alleged mismatch in identification, and it treated the filing of an anticipatory bail application as proof of guilt without analysing the basic evidence or rival submissions. The penalty order was therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after hearing the appellant and recording detailed findings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty order could stand when the identification of the appellant was disputed and the material evidence was not properly considered.

Analysis: The evidence of identity was central to the case, but the original authority did not address the appellant's specific challenge regarding the photograph shown to the witnesses, the hospital record, and the alleged mismatch in identification. The finding that an anticipatory bail application itself proved guilt was held to be an improper basis for sustaining liability without examining the basic evidence and the rival submissions in detail.

Conclusion: The penalty order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard and for recording detailed findings.

---