Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4484 of 2006)
State of Himachal Pradesh ..Appellant
Versus
Shish Ram ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
dismissing the application filed by the appellant-State for
grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court i.e. learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kandaghat, Camp at Solan, H.P. in Criminal case
no.133/2 of 02/95. Respondent faced trial for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,
468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
‘IPC’).
3. Though various points were urged in support of the
appeal, the primary stand was that by non-reasoned order the
application was disposed of.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent in spite
of the service of notice.
5. The order which is impugned in the present appeal reads
as follows:
“Be registered. Heard. Dismissed.”
2
6. 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’s judgment not
sustainable.
7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) 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
3
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 a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous
with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
7. In State of Punjab vs. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547), it
was observed as follows:
“4. According to learned counsel for the
appellant-State it was imperative on the High
Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer
for grant of leave was found untenable. In the
absence of any such reasons the order of the
High Court is indefensible. Section 378 (3) of
the Code deals with the power of the High
Court to grant leave in case of acquittal.
4
Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code reads as
follows:
“378(1) Save as otherwise
provided in sub-section (2) and
subject to the provisions of sub-
section (3) and (5), the State
Government may, in any case,
direct the Public Prosecutor to
present an appeal to the High
Court from an original or appellate
order of acquittal passed by any
Court other than a High Court or
an order of acquittal passed by the
Court of Session in revision.
xx xx xx
(3) No appeal under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) shall
be entertained except with the leave
of the High Court”.
5. The trial Court was required to carefully
appraise the entire evidence and then come to
a conclusion. If the trial Court was at lapse in
this regard the High Court was obliged to
undertake such an exercise by entertaining
the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of this
case did not perform its duties, as was
enjoined on it by law. The High Court ought to
have in such circumstances granted leave and
thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-
appreciated the entire evidence on the record
5
independently and returned its findings
objectively as regards guilt or otherwise of the
accused. It has failed to do so. The questions
involved were not trivial. The requirement of
independent witness and discarding testimony
of official witnesses even if it was reliable,
cogent or trustworthy needed adjudication in
appeal. The High Court has not given any
reasons for refusing to grant leave to file
appeal against acquittal, and seems to have
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 and Ors (2001 (10) SCC
607). About two decades back in State of
Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan
(AIR 1982 SC 1215) 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 recognized as
imperative. The view was re-iterated in
Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors.
(1987 (2) SCC 222). Judicial discipline to
abide by declaration of law by this Court,
cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any
6
authority or Court, be it even the Highest
Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the
‘Constitution’)”.
8. The appeal is allowed.
...............................
J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
…….………...............J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
New Delhi,
July 15, 2008
7
8