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

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  361 of 2008

PETITIONER: State of Rajasthan

RESPONDENT: Rohitas & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   361 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 5125 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 the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur  Bench, 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 in a nutshell are as follows:

Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences  punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 304 (B) of the Indian  Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’).  It was the case of the  prosecution that because of the torture meted out for bringing  less dowry, she was murdered.  Her dead body was found in  the well of the accused persons.  It was the case of the  complainant that after killing her for dowry, she was thrown  into the well.  Charges were framed and the accused persons  faced trial.

The trial court directed acquittal.  Thereafter, as noted  above, the appellant-State filed an application for grant of  leave, which was rejected.  Stand of the appellant was that the  summary dismissal is not sustainable in law.  There is no  appearance on behalf of the respondent-accused.

4.      Section 378 of the Code 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  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.

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

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

5.      To say the least the order is practicably unreasoned.   

6.      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’).    

7.      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).

8.      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  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.  9.      The above position was highlighted in State of Orissa  v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004(5) SCC 568).

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

10.     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.