STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHISH RAM

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 994

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHISH RAM.pdf

Judgment text

[2008) 10 S. C. R. 994 • +-- STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. r SHISH RAM . - (Criminal Appeal No. 1091 of 2008) .. ,,,. JULY 15, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ. ] Judgment! Order: Non-reasoned order -· Sustainability +of - Held: Absence of reasons renders the order, not sustain- '~ able. ~ The Trial Court passed an order of a 6. 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's judgment not sustainable. 7. 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 LCR 120) it was observed: "Fail- ure 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 tac~ of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, rende~r it virtually im- ,possible for the Courts to perform· their appel. late function or -~xercise the power· bf judicial review in aqjudging the validity of ·fhe deqision. Right to reason is anJndispensabl13 part of a sound ]udici_al system, reasoris at. least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that th~ affected party can know why the decision has gone agaiqst him. , One of the_splutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the or9~r made, ih other words, a speaking out.

The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial p13rformance. 0 i In State of Punjab vs~ Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547), it was observed as follows: .. "4. According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it was imperative on the High Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer for grant of leave was. found untenable. In the absence of any such reasons the! order of the High Court is indefensible,. Sectiol'l 3_78 (3) of the Code deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code reads as follows: "378(1) Save as othe~ise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) and (5), ' ithe State Gover. nment may, in any cas.

e, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court j,J: A other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision. ? - ~ xx . xx xx ¢ '•"t (3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court". 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 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 btherwise of the accused.

It has failed to do so. The questions involved were not trivial. The requirement of independent '- > witness and discarding testimony of official witnesses even if it was reliable, cogent or trustworthy 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 be'en 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 (lpplication 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 UP v. Battan and Ors (2001 (. 10) SCC 607). About two ;.. '-. ,( decades back in ~tate of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (Al R 1982 SC 1215) the desirability of speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating A 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 B Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1S15Q (in short the 'Constitution')". 8.. The appeal is allowed. D. G. Appeal allowed.