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

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  360 of 2008

PETITIONER: State of Rajasthan

RESPONDENT: Rajendra Prasad Jain

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 360 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 904 of 2007)

1.      Leave granted. 2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the Order passed by a  Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court  dismissing the application filed for grant of leave to prefer  an appeal in terms of Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Cr.P.C.’).  3.      Background facts need to be noted in brief:         Respondent faced trial for alleged commission for  offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with  Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1978 (in  short the ’Act’).  Learned Special Judge, Sessions Court,  Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota in Sessions Case No. 8 of  2001 directed acquittal.  The basic reason for directing  acquittal was that the prosecution has failed to prove the  demand and acceptance of bribe and also that on the day  the complainant claimed to have paid the bribe, no work  was pending with the accused. The appellant State filed an application for grant of  leave.  The same has been rejected by the impugned order.   To say the least the order is practicably unreasoned.  The  High Court appears to have lost sight of the fact that in the  statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the  respondent specifically accepted that he has received a sum  of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for payment of certain  outstanding dues, but such a plea was not taken in the  course of the trap proceedings. 4.      There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent  though notice has been served. 5.      Parameters to be adopted while dealing with such an  application has been laid down by this Court in several  cases.       6.      Section 378 of the Cr.P.C deals with the power of the  High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Sub-sections (1)  and (3) of Section 378 read 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

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

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.

(3)       No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) shall be entertained except with  the leave of the High Court".

7.      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 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 effect of the  admission of the accused in the background of testimony of  official witnesses and the documents exhibited 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 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.      Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without  the same it becomes lifeless.  (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of  Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152).

9.      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 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

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

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 a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous  with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.  10.     The above position was highlighted in State of Orissa  v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004(5) SCC 568). 11.     Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court  cannot be sustained and is set aside, and matter is remitted  to it.  The High Court shall take up the matter afresh and  dispose of the same in accordance with law.  The appeal is  allowed without any order as to costs.