Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 377 of 2008
PETITIONER:
M/s Goyal Enterprises
RESPONDENT:
State of Jharkhand & Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & J.M. PANCHAL
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
ORDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 4710 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court refusing to grant
leave to appeal.
3. Stand of the appellant is that the order of the Division
Bench summarily dismissing the application cannot be
sustained. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other
hand, supported the order stating that though the order is
non-reasoned, yet this is not a fit case for exercise of power
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short
’The Constitution’).
4. The application before the High Court for grant of leave
was filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ’The Cr.P.C.’).
5. In the instant case proceeding was initiated on the basis
of a complaint filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist
Class, Jamshedpur alleging commission of offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short ’The Act’). The accused who is respondent No.2 in the
petition was found guilty, and was accordingly, convicted and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He
was also directed to pay by way of compensation the cheque
amount of Rs.61,860/- and Rs.62, 860/- to the complainant
within one month from the passing of the order. The accused
filed a petition for revision before the Sessions Court. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2,
Jamshedpur, by order dated 2.3.2006 set aside the judgment
of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate. Thereafter, as noted above, application in terms of
Section 378(4) Cr.P.C, was filed. The same has been dismissed
summarily by a Division Bench of the High Court.
6. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to
grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
been completely oblivious to the fact that by such refusal, a
close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum,
has been lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal
against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves
much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On
plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have
set forth its reasons, howsoever brief in its order, indicative of
an application of its mind; all the more when its order is
amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of
reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable.
Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. v. Battan (2001 (10)
SCC 607). About two decades back in State of Maharashtra v.
Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (1981 (4) SCC 129), the desirability
of a speaking order while dealing with an application for grant
of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating
reasons in such cases has been judicially recognised as
imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v.
Naresh Singh (1987 (2) SCC 222). Judicial discipline to abide
by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under
any pretext by any authority or court, be it even the highest
court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution.
7. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without
the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of
Bihar 2003 (11) SCC 519)
8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning,
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER
1148, observed: "The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed:
"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice."
"Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker
to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion
arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals
the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence,
render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their
appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an
indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least
sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter
before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can
know why the decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons
for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The
"inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with
a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
9. The above position was highlighted by this Court in State
of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547).
10. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned
judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and is set aside.
We grant leave to the State to file the appeal. The High Court
shall entertain the appeal and after formal notice to the
respondents hear the appeal and dispose of it in accordance
with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the
present appeal. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.