Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 93 of 2002
PETITIONER:
PAUL GEORGE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/2002
BENCH:
R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar
JUDGMENT:
Brijesh Kumar, J.
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal against the order dated
September 25, 2001 passed by the Delhi High Court,
dismissing Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2001 preferred by
the appellant, passing the following order:
"I have heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner. I find no illegality,
impropriety or jurisdictional error in
the judgment under challenge.
Dismissed"
The appellant has been convicted under Section
279 read with Section 304A IPC and sentenced to a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default simple imprisonment for a period of
ten days, on the first count and to simple imprisonment for
nine months and a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default one month’s
further simple imprisonment, on the latter count. The
appeal preferred against conviction and the sentence was
dismissed as well as the revision.
The learned counsel for the appellant has
vehemently urged that the criminal revision has been
dismissed by the High Court by means of a non-speaking
order. It indicates no reasons to reject the pleas raised by
the appellant nor there is any indication of application of
mind while deciding the revision.
It is submitted that inter alia, one of the pleas
raised before the High Court was that the prosecution of the
appellant was bad for want of sanction by the competent
authority. It is submitted that the appellant has been
working in the police department as a Driver. At the time of
occurrence he was driving the official vehicle in
performance of his official duty. Therefore, he had been
acting under colour of duty. In such circumstances,
contention is, it was obligatory to obtain sanction before
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
initiation of the prosecution which is otherwise barred
under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. It provides that
in any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other
person done under colour of duty or in excess of any such
duty or authority or it appears to have been done in the
nature as indicated above, the prosecution shall not be
entertained without previous sanction of the Administrator.
In this case it is contended that such sanction has not been
obtained by the authorities. It is also submitted that there is
no eye-witness account alleging rash or negligent driving on
the part of the appellant and the courts below erred in
fastening the guilt upon the appellant only by application
of the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".
We are, however not examining the merits of
the pleas raised before us. We are only considering the
question as to whether the revision should have been
disposed of by means of bald and non-speaking order. We
feel that whatever be the outcome of the pleas raised by the
appellant on merits, the order disposing of the matter must
indicate application of mind to the case and some reasons
be assigned for negating or accepting such pleas. We find
total absence of the same in the order passed by the High
Court quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. As a
matter of fact, the order says nothing except that no
illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error was found in
the judgment of the courts below. Then abruptly order
"Dismissed" is passed. It is submitted that probably the
revision has been disposed of by the High Court having the
provisions of Section 115 C.P.C. in mind since the order
observe about "no jurisdictional" error having been
committed by the courts below.
It is submitted that the language of Section 397 Cr.PC
is different and it does not speak of jurisdictional error
which it is there all pervading under Section 115 CPC .
The submission further is that the scope of the two
provisions is different It is narrower under Section 115
C.P.C. Suffice it to observe that question of error in
exercise of jurisdiction may arise sometimes in criminal
revisions as well. Be that as it may, the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant could not be negated without
examining them on merit The order impugned however
does not indicate any trace of application of mind on the
facts or the pleas raised before the Court. We would like to
point out that we come across with such orders quite
frequently as of now. There is no need to emphasize that
the reasons, howsoever brief they may be, are to be
indicated in an order disposing of any matter, more so when
such orders are subject to appeal or review before the
higher forum. In many decisions of this Court, no doubt
while dealing with orders passed in exercise of
administrative or quasi-judicial power in those cases, it has
been observed that so as to indicate application of mind,
the orders should contain some reasons which also helps to
the appellate or revisional authority to appreciate the
merit of the orders passed and the way the decision has
been arrived at. *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1. S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India 1990 (4) SCC 594
2. Maharashtra State Board of S & H.S. Education versus
K.S. Gandhi; 3. M.J. Shivani Versus State of Karnataka
AIR 1995 SC 1770
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
attention to a case reported in (2000) 10 S.C.C. 338 State of
Andhra Pradesh versus Rajagopala Rao in which this
Court has set aside the order passed by the High Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction on the ground that it
amounted to a non-speaking. The case was remanded to the
High Court for consideration afresh for its disposal by
means of a speaking order. The facts, though in the said
case were a bit different since it was an order of acquittal
recorded in revision upsetting the finding of two courts
below. In the case of Mahrashtra State Board (supra),
following observations were made:
"The recording of reasons is also an
assurance that the authority concerned
consciously applied its mind to the facts
on record. It also aids the appellate or
revisional authority or the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 136 to see
whether the authority concerned acted
fairly and justly to mete out justice to the
aggrieved person"
It is true that it may depend upon the nature of the matter
which is being dealt with by the Court and the nature of
jurisdiction being exercised as to in what manner the
reasons may be recorded e.g. in an order of affirmance
detailed reasons or discussion may not be necessary but
some brief indication by which application of mind may be
traceable to affirm an order would certainly be required.
Mere ritual of repeating the words or language used in the
provisions, saying that no illegality, impropriety or
jurisdictional error is found in the judgment under challenge
without even a whisper of the merit of the matter or nature
of pleas raised does not meet the requirement of decision of
a case judicially.
In view of the discussion held above in our view
it is a matter in which the High Court may consider the
matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance
with law. We would like to make it clear that we may not be
taken to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the
pleas raised by the appellant and the matter shall be decided
by the High Court independent of observation, if any, made
on merits in this judgment.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The
impugned order passed by the High Court dated25.9.2001 in
Criminal Revision No.555 of 2001 is set aside. The case is
remanded to the High Court for its expeditious disposal
afresh.
It is further ordered that the appellant shall be
released on bail, forthwith during pendency and disposal of
the Revision before the High Court, on the same terms and
conditions on which he had been on bail till the disposal of
the revision by the High Court earlier.
-----------------------J.
(R.C. Lahoti)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
-----------------------J
(Brijesh Kumar)
January 21, 2002