STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SARDARA SINGH

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 861 A 8 ## STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH _v._ ## SARDARA SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 1354 of 2008) ## AUGUST 27, 2008 ## [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973_ - _s. 378(3)_ - _Application under_ - _For grant of leave to file appeal, against_ c _order of acquittal passed by Trial Court-Summarily dismissed by High Court_ - _Held: Absence of reasons rendered the High_ Court order not sustainable_ - _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_ - _Direction to High Court, to_ 0 _grant leave, as grounds raised not without substance_ - - _Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985_ s. 15_ - _Principles of natural justice_ - _Requirement of speaking order._ ·~~ E· Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under s.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was acquitted by the Trial Court. Appellant-State filed application under s.378(3), CrPC for grant of leave to file appeal against the F order of acquittal. High Court dismissed the application summarily by simply stating "dismissed". Hence the present appeal. ## Allowing the appeal,· the Court > HELD:1.The Trial Court was required to carefully appraise the entire evidence and then come to a > conc!usion. If the Trial Court was at lapse in tliis regard, the High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise G 861 H. _, [2008] 12 S.C.R. 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS _r_ A by entertaining the appeal. The Trial Court on the facts of _r_ 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 B[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 primary _t--_ ground for acquittal seems to be that the alleged eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution case and, c[therefore, ][their ][presence ][is ][doubtful. ][Th~ ][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 D[forum, ][has been ][lost ][once and ][for ][all. The ][manner ][in Which ] app,eal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court l~aves 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 E 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. There is desirability of a speaking order while dealing with. an application for grant of leave. The requirement of F indicating reasons in such case's has been judicially recognized as imperative. Judicial discipline to ~bide 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 Con~titution G of India, 1950. [Para 8] [865 B-H, 866 A-B] '\ ;4. t.2. 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 Coutts to H I _I_ 863 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH _v._ SARDARA SINGH _i_ _l_ _t_ ~ ~ ....[... ] - perform their appellate function or exercise the power of A judicia.1 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 B 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 sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Para 9] [866 C-F] c 1 ;3. In view of the principles set out above, it would be appropriate to direct the High Court to grant leave as grounds raised are not without substance. [Para 11] [866-G] _State of UP v. Battan and Ors._ (2001) 10 SCC 607; D _State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan_ AIR (1982) SC 1215; _Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors._ (1987) 92 SCC 222 and _State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh_ (2004) 1 sec 547 - relied on . •. _Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union_ (1971) 1 All E E.R. 1148 and _Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree_ (197 4) LCR 120 - referred to ...J |(197 4)|_Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd._<br>(197 4)LCR120 - referred to|_Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd._<br>(197 4)LCR120 - referred to|_Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd._|| |---|---|---|---|---| ||Case Law Reference|||| ||· AIR(1982)SC1215|relied on|Para8|F| ||(1987) 92sec222|relied on|Para8|| ||(2001) 1osec607|relied on|Para8|| ||(1971) 1AllE.R.1148|referred to · . Para|referred to · . Para9|| ||(1974)LCR120|referred to|P~.ra9|G'| ||(2004) 1sec547|relied on|Para10|| ||CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal|||| |No.|No.1354of 2008|||| Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant. H f ,,I-- _)-_ SUPREME COURT REPORTS 864 A B L '\ 1·' .· .. ~c _t_ , ' \ . . . ·o > .. ' E ~"·,...:...- G [2008] 12 S.C.R. ).-' K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .. **Dr.** ARIJIT **PASAYAT,** J. 1. Leave granted . 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the State in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The application was dismissed summarily by simply stating "Dismissed". ~ 3. The respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, .1985 (in short the 'NDPS Act') . 4. The tria! court directed acquittal on the ground that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be accepted and accordingly the acquittal was recorded. The application under . Section 378 vvas fiied which as noted above was dismissed summarily. ~ 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the manner of disposal of the application is contrary to the decision~ of this court in a large number of cases. F 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no merit in the case and, therefore, the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for grant of leave. ~ 7. Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. as it stood then, 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 Stat~ 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 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SARDARA 865 SINGH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] ~ ~ • _4_ _I_ other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by A 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". B -~ 8. 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 c was enjoined on it by law. The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave arid 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 D questions involved were not trivial. The primary ground for acquittal seems to be that the alleged eye-witnesses did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, their presence is doubtful. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to E 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[F ] 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 no\ sustain_able. Similar view was expressed in _State of UP. v. Battan and Ors_ G {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 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. 866 A 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 _br_ Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 B of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). 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_ C _(Oudley) 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 D on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtu~lly 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 E 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· F speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a -judicial or quasi-judicial performance. F · 10. These aspects were highlighted in _State of Pun}ab v ._ . _Bhag Singh_ (2004(1) sec 547) · G 11. In view of the principles set out above it would be appropriate to direct the High Court to grant leave as grounds raised are not without substance. · · .12. Appeal is allowed. H B.B.B. Appeal allowed.