http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  257 of 2008

PETITIONER: Jagtamba Devi

RESPONDENT: Hem Ram and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   257         OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 695 of 2007)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court  dismissing the Revision  Petition filed by the appellant under  Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Code’).  

3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

       In the year 2001, the appellant was Pradhan of Gram  Panchayat Village, Rore, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra,  Himachal Pradesh and continued as such till December, 2005.  On 6.1.2003 sanction was given for construction of village  road for which the Panchayat received a sum of Rs.20,000/-.  According to the appellant, the respondents herein after  coming to know of the grant of sanction for Rs.20,000/-  pressurized her for construction of a road to their houses  instead of constructing a road for which sanction was  received. Thereafter, the work on the sanctioned project  commenced. On 13.10.2003 when the construction was in  progress, the respondents came to the work site at about 4.30  p.m. and abused the complainant in filthy and derogatory  language and threatened her with dire consequences. They  forcibly obstructed the appellant and the labourers from doing  any work on the village road. They caused hurt to the  appellant and by using criminal force pushed her and thereby  deterred public servant from performing her duties. On  22.10.2003 the Gram Panchayat filed a complaint with the  police officials but since no action was taken, a  private  complaint for alleged commission of offences punishable under  Sections 332, 353, 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in  short the ’IPC’) was filed in the Court of learned Judicial  Magistrate, Palampur. After recording preliminary evidence, an  order was passed on 1.7.2004 issuing summons of the  accused persons.  On 28.9.2004, learned Executive Magistrate  directed the file to be consigned by holding that the Kalandara  had become time barred and no further action was required.  Appellant made a grievance that no notice of the proceedings  was given to her and neither she nor her advocate was heard

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

before the passing of the order. An application was filed on  20.7.2005 by the accused persons praying for dropping  charges with a contention that the applicants cannot be tried  for the same offence. Reference was made to the order dated  28.9.2004 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Palampur. On  7.8.2005 after receiving notice, appellant submitted her reply  specifically contending that the provisions of Section 300 of  the Code are not applicable to the proceedings. It was  submitted that the concept of double jeopardy was not  applicable to the proceedings under Section 107/150 of the  Code.  Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur  partly accepted the application and dropped proceedings  against applicants 1 and 2 namely, Hem Raj and Swroop  Chand on the ground that the said applicants cannot be tried  for the same offence.  

       Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the  Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Criminal Revision  Petition was filed which was numbered as Criminal Revision  No.111 of 2006. By the impugned order, the revision was  dismissed in summary manner.  

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after  issuance of summons the learned Magistrate ought not to  have directed discharge of the accused persons. In any event,  the dismissal of the revision petition in a summary manner  without indicating any reason by the High Court cannot be  maintained.  It is not a case where it cannot be said that there  is no arguable point. The order passed by the learned  Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is thoroughly mis- conceived in law and the High Court ought to have interfered  in the revision.     

5.      Learned counsel for the respondents submitted since  there is no merit in the revision petition, the High Court has  rightly dismissed the revision petition summarily.  

6.      The order of the High Court reads as follows:

"Heard. Dismissed".           It is absolutely non-reasoned. 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. The absence of reasons has rendered the  High Court’s judgment unsustainable.  

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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.  

8.      We set aside the impugned order of the High Court and  remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration.  Needless to say the High Court shall pass a reasoned order in  the revision petition.  

9.      The appeal is allowed.