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