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.