JUDGMENT : Shah, J. 1. For selling 375 grams of chilly powder to the Food Inspector, Dohad Municipality, the appellant was prosecuted in the court of Judicial Magistrate, first class, Dohad, for an offence under Sections 7(1) and 7(5) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The learned Magistrate convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs 400 and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the court of Session, Godhra. The court of Session confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. The appellant then preferred a revision application to the High Court of Gujarat under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition contains as many as twenty grounds in support of the petition some on questions of law, some on questions of fact and some on mixed questions of law and fact. The petition was admitted by the High Court and rule was issued to the State of Gujarat and the complainant, the Food Inspector, Dohad Municipality, requiring them to show cause why the order should not be set aside. The petition was placed for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat and on August 19, 1966 the petition was disposed of by what is called a note: "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not wish to exercise my revisional jurisdiction in this matter." 2. Against the order passed by the learned Judge with certificate granted by the High Court this appeal has been preferred. Counsel for the State of Gujarat urged that the certificate was improperly granted because no grounds were given by the learned Judges who granted the certificate under Article 134(1 )(c). We do not see any substance in that contention. It is true that ordinarily reasons should be given in support of a certificate granted by the High Court. But the mere fact that a certificate granted or the order made by the High Court directing the issue of a certificate does not contain reasons, the appeal filed in this court pursuant to the certificate is not rendered incompetent. 3. In our judgment, there has been really no trial of the appellant case in the High Court. But the mere fact that a certificate granted or the order made by the High Court directing the issue of a certificate does not contain reasons, the appeal filed in this court pursuant to the certificate is not rendered incompetent. 3. In our judgment, there has been really no trial of the appellant case in the High Court. The investment of judicial power postulates power to determine the rights and obligations of the parties according to law and in the manner prescribed by the procedural law. It does not confer merely a power upon the Judge to decide the case, but it imposes upon him a duty to determine it according to law. Exercise of the power is not to be according to the wish, fancy or whim of the Judge. In this case after hearing the petitioner the learned Judge of the High Court has merely said that "he did not wish to exercise the jurisdiction". It was urged that what was intended to be meant thereby was that no case was made out for the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the High Court had issued rule in this case and the matter was placed for hearing after the parties were served. The learned Judge should have given some reasons if he intended to say that no case was made out for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court in support of that conclusion, but no reasons have been given. In our judgment, this is not a satisfactory way of disposing of a case after rule has been issued to the respondents and the parties are ready for hearing. 4. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the High Court for hearing and disposal according to law.