State of H.P. v. Mushtaq Ahmad

+- " A ## STA TE OF H.P. ## _v._ ## MUSHTAQ AHMAD ## MARCH 26, 2007 B [DR.ARIJITPASAYATANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] _Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--s. 378(3)-Application seeking leave to appeal-Against order of acquittal-Summary dismissal of the_ c _[application by High ][Court-On ][appeal, held: Absence ][of ][reason has rendered ] the order of High Court as not sustainable-However, in view of nature of finding recorded by trial court, the case cannot be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136._ - _Judgment-Need to give reasons-Held: right to reason is an_ - D _[indispensable part ][of ][a sound judicial system-Reasons introduce clarity ][in ] an otder-They are indicative of an application of mind by the Judicial forum-One of the statutory requirements of natural justice is speaking out reasons for the order made-Absence of reasons, render it impossible for the Court to perform its appellate power or power of judicial review in adjullging the validity of the decision._ ## E Present Special Leave Petition is against the Order of High Court in an application under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against order of acquittal, whereby it had· refused to grant leave to file appeal summarily, without assigning any reason. \. ## F Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD : 1. 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 G[acquittal, by the appellate forum, has ][been ][lost once and for all. 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 (Para 3) (426-B-C) .. ,,..._' H 424 425 STATE OF H.P. _v._ MUSHTAQAHMAD[PASAYAT,J.] _)_ _f_ _State of U.P._ v. _Rattan and Ors.,_ (2001) 10 SCC 607; _State of Maharashtra_ v. _Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan,_ AIR (1982) SC 1215 and ' _Jawahar Lal Singh_ v. _Naresh Singh and Ors.,_ [1987] 2 SCC 222, relied on. _Breen_ v. _Amalgamated Engineering Union_ (1971) 1 All E.R. 1148 and _Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd._ v. _Crabtree_ (1974) LCR 120, referred to. B 2. 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 C 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 effected party can know why the decision had gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of D 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. (Para 4) [426-F-G; 427-A) _State of Punjab_ v. _Bhag Singh,_ [2004) 1 SCC 547, relied on. E 3. However, in view of the nature of the findings recorded by trial court this is not a fit case where exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is called for. [Para 5] (427-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1102 of2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2006 of the High Court ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 593 of2006. - J.S. Attri for the Petitioner. G > The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Challenge in this special leave petition is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). H +- 426 [2007] 4 S.C.R. ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS A 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the application was dismissed summarily without indicating any reason. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has in many cases deprecated the practice of such dismissal. ,.. 3. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave B 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 C 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] IO SCC 607. About two decades back in _State of Maharashtra_ v. _Vithal Rao Prilirao Chawan,_ AIR (1982) SC D 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, E under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to A;rticle 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). 4. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in _Breen_ v. _Amalgamated Engineering Union,_ [1971] 1 All E.R. 1148 observed "The F 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 G decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perfonn 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 H before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the + 427 ## STATEOFH.P. _v._ MUSHTAQAHMAD[PASAYAT,J.) decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural A 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. (See _State of Punjab_ v. _Bhag Singh,_ [2004] 1 sec 54 7). 5. In the background of what has been stated in _Bhag Singh's_ case B (supra) the grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner-State about the manner in which the petition has been dismissed is unexceptionable. But we have perused the judgment of the trial Court. Considering the nature of the findings recorded we do not consider this to be a fit case where exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is called for. The petition is C accordingly dismissed. ## K.K.T. SLP dismissed. _)_