[2008] 16 $.C.R. 837

~ ...

MOHINDRA HIRE PURCHASE A

cl( v.

JARNAIL SINGH . , (Criminal Appeal No'. 810 of 2003).

DECEMBER 1, 2008 B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM

SHARMA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378(3) and (4) - Case instituted upon complaint uls. 138 of the Negotiable c Instruments Act, 1881 - Acquittal of accused - Application by compla/nant for grant of special leave to file appeal - High Court dismissed the application by a non-reasoned order - -( Held: High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its D mind, all the more when its order was amenable to further avenue of challenge - On facts, the questions in.valved were

.,, not trivial - High Court directed to hear the appeal on merits

- Administration of criminal justice - Desirability of speaking order - Judicial Discipline - Constitution of India, 1950 - E Article 141.

Respondent-accused was acquitted in a case instituted upon a complaint filed by appellant under s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Appellant filed F application under s.378 Cr.P.C for grant of special leave " to file appeal. High Court dismissed the application without indicating any reason. The complainant filed the instant appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court · G

HELD: 1.1. In the facts and circumstances of the ..; case, the trial court was required to carefully appraise the entire evidence and then come to a conclu.sion. If the trial

837 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

A court was at-lapse in this regard; the High Court was

obliged to undertake such an exercise by entertaining the appeal. The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a court of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on 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 High Court has not given any reasons for _refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have c been compltely 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 de!; ired. Reasons

0 introduce clarity in an order. On the plainest

consideration of jµstice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of application of its mind, all the. more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of E reasons has rendered the High Court order not

sustainable. [Para 5] [842-C-F]

1.2. The requirement of indicating reasons has been judicially recognized as imperative. Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this _Court, cannot be F 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 the instant case, the High Court ought to have granted leave. The High Court is directed to hear the appeal on merits. [Paras 5 G and 8] [842-G-H; 843-A, G]

State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors. (2001) 1 o sec 607; State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR (1982) SC 1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1·987) 2 . H SCC 222 and State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004) 1 SCC

• .. r '

1--, __ r-

,...

I ~

MOHINDRA HIRE PURCHASE v. JARNAIL SINGH 839

'"""! , 547, 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.

Case Law Reference: B

c2001) 10 sec so1 relied on Para 5

AIR (1982) SC 1215 relied on Para 5

(1987) 2 sec 222 relied on Para 5 c

(2004) 1 sec 547 relied on Para 7

(1971) 1 All E.R. 1148 referred to Para 6

(1974) LCR 120 referred to Para 6 D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 810 of 2003.

'1 From the final Order dated 16.1.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 552-MA E of 2002.

Rajat Sharma, Dinesh Tiwari and A.P. Mohanty for the Appellant. .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F

~ DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant in terms of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, G 1973 (in short the 'Code'). Appellant had lodged a complaint alleging that cheques issued by the respondents were not

-! honoured by the Bank and in spite of service of notice to the respondent demanding repayment of loan amount, the respondent failed to pay the amount. A complaint under Section

_..

Court of Session in revision.

(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946) or by any other agency empowered to make investigation B

into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of sub-s.ection (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal - c

(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate, in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;

(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate D order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.

(3) No appeal to the High Court under sub-section (1) or E

sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave

-4 of the High Court. ...

(4) lfsuch an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon Complaint and the High Court, on an F

~ application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants, special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High

Court.

(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of G

special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order H

SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS


\--

A of acquittal. .._

(6) If in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal

B shall He under sub-section (1) or under sub-'section (2)."

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

..,.,

c undertake such an exercise by entertaining the appeal.- The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-appreciated the r entire evidence on the record independently and returned its findings objectively, as regards guilt or otherwise of the accused.

It has fa.iled to do so. The questions involved were not trivial.

D 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 E acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to

be-desired, Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On the 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 F 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) SOC 607). About two decades back, in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982--SC

G 1215) th~ 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 JawaharLal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987 (2) SCC

H 222). Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this

__,, Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority A 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').

6. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning e 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 c are live links between the mind of the decision taker and 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 D 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 tothe matter before Court.

Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the E 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.

F ,..

7. The above position was highlighted in State of Punjab

v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) sec 547).

8. In the instant case, the High Court ought to have granted G leave. The High Court shall hear the appeal on merits. The

. .,. appeal is allowed. However, we have expressed no opinion on ,. the merits of the case.

B.B.B.

Appeal allowed.

_ ..