ORDER : M.D.Shah, J. Heard Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. M.A.Patel, learned APP for the respondent-State. 2. The present petitioner has preferred this revision application for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.154 of 2004 dated 5.9.2006. The petitioner has further prayed to restore the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad dated 9.4.2004 passed in Criminal Case No.24/2003 and further to direct operation of the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner is doing business of manufacturing, storing and selling mango ras. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the petitioner on 23.4.2003. He took sample of 1 kg. Mango shake from the shop and sent for analysis to Public Analyst and on analyzing it was found that there was presence of Sunset Yellow and Tartrazine Yellow synthetic colour. The Public Analyst gave opinion that the said sample is adulterated and he came to the conclusion that the sample does not comply with the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The said Food Inspector lodged complaint on 4.9.2003 against the petitioner and the said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No.24/2003 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, Ahmedabad. After hearing, the petitioner was discharged from offence punishable under section 13 (3) of the Food Adulteration Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 9.4.2004 passed below application Exh.- 12 in Criminal Case No.24/2003.The State has, against the said order, preferred Revision Application before the Additional City Sessions Judge being Criminal Revision Application No.154 of 2004. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has allowed the said revision application on 5.9.2006 and quashed and set aside the order dated 9.4.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6. Against the said order the present petitioner-original accused has preferred this revision application. 4. Mr Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the learned Revisional Judge has recorded the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties in paras 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment, the court has not dealt with the said arguments and has merely stated that the order of discharging accused based on report is erroneous as certain facts requires leading of evidence. Learned APP has supported the submissions of Mr Gandhi. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 11. Ahmedabad. No specific reasons are assigned by the said court for setting aside the order of the lower court. The learned Sessions Judge has neither discussed the relevant points nor dealt with the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the accused persons. Thus, the learned Judge has erred in not appreciating the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act while setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 6. It is pertinent to note that without giving any findings, the lower court has allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and therefore, the said order is prima facie, illegal. It is the bounden duty of the court to discuss all the submissions and contentions raised by both the parties when the court decides to set aside the order passed by the lower court. 7. Under these circumstances, in the interest of justice, this court has left with no option but to remand the matter to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Ahmedabad for deciding Criminal Revision Application No.154 of 2004 on merits after giving ample opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 8. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Ahmedabad, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to that court. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge is hereby directed to hear the Revision Application No.154 of 2006 afresh and dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Revision allowed