Holding

A petition for leave to appeal under CrPC s.378 must be considered with a reasoned order; dismissal without reasons is untenable.

Summary

Twenty‑five accused were tried for dacoity and murder under Section 396 of the IPC. Eye‑witnesses claimed to have identified the accused in lantern light, and the prosecution evidence was attributed to different accused. The Sessions Judge discarded the prosecution evidence and acquitted all accused. The State of Bihar filed a petition for leave to appeal under Sections 378(1) and 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the Patna High Court dismissed the petition in limine without giving any reasons. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was required to examine the reasons for the acquittal and pass a reasoned order, and therefore set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for disposal with reasons. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court could dismiss a petition for leave to appeal under CrPC s.378(1) and (3) in limine without recording reasons.
Whether the Supreme Court can set aside such an order and remit the case for a reasoned decision.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378(1), s. 378(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 396

Subjects

criminal procedureleave to appealacquittalreasoned orderCrPC s.378IPC s.396dacoitymurder

Judgment

JAWAHAR LAL SINGH
A
v.
NARESH SINGI:I & ORS.

FEBRUARY 10, 1987

B [G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTI, JJ.]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: s.378(1) & (3),--Petition by State
for leave to appeal against acquittal of accused charged under s.396 IPC
dismissed in limine by High Court without a reasoned order-Case
remitted to High Court for disposal in accordance with law.
c A nnmber of persons were tried on the allegation of committing a
decoity with murder and charged for offence under s.396 of the Indian
Penal Code. Eye witnesses claimed to have identified the accnsed
persons in the light of a lantern. The evidence also attributed different
parts to different accn~ed persons. The trial court after con•idering the
D evidence discarded it and acqnitted all the accused persons of the
charge.

The High Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal against
acquittal filed by the State Government under s.378( I) and (3) of the
Code of Criminal Proce1lure in limine with the words "Prayer for leave
E to appeal is refused. Appeal is dismissed." Without examining the
reasons on the basis of which the trial court had discarded the evidence.
The appellant appealed to this Conrt.

Allowing the appeal,
F HELD: The High Court should have considered titc matter and -~ -
passed a reasoned order. The incident was such wher•:n a number of
persons were involved. There were a number of witnesses examined in
the case. A perusal of the record shows that all the reasons on the basis
of which the whole of the prosecution evidence had been discarded by
the trial 1'0urt were not so simple or so good that they did not require
G examination. l222B-C]
The appeal alongwith the petition file<.! by the State for leave to
appeal is restored to the file of the High Court, and directed to be disposed \..
of after hearing the partie:1, giving reasons for conclusions. [222E-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
H No. 150 of 1986.
r·.
-
220
JAWAHAR LAL SINGH v. NARESH SINGH [OZA, J.] 221

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.83 of the Patna High
1 Court in Govt. Appeal No. 29/83.
A

S.N. Misra, M.M.P. Sinha and P.C. Kapur for the Petitioner.

S.C. Misra and, Mrs. Gian Sudha Misra for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
'f
OZA, J. This appeal has been filed in this Court against the
-= '( dismissal in Iimine of a petition filed by the State of Bihar in the High
Court of Judicature at Patna wherein learned Judges of the High Court
rejected a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal filed by the
State Government under Sec.378( 1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal
c
·r Procedure in limine by ony saying "Prayer for leave to appeal is
refused. Appeal is dismissed."

Before the trial Court 25 accused persons were tried on the alle-
gation that they committed dacoity and in the commission of the said D
dacoity murder of one A jab Lal Singh was committed. Consquently all
of them were charged for offence under Section 396 of the Indian
I Penal Code. It is alleged that in the night intervening between 5th and
..;,, 6th day of June, 1980 at Village Nandlal Patti situated within P.S.
Amarpur in the District of Bhagalpur, occurrence took place in the
house of one Jawahar Lal Singh P.W. 21 who lodged the First Inforrna- E
tion Report, his house is situated in Nandlal Patti and in the course of
dacoity his brother Ajab Lal Singh was killed. The incident is said to
_....,_. have taken place at 12 O'clock at midnight, and the information was
lodged on 6th of June 1980 at 8.45 A.M., at Bhagalpur Medical
' College Hospital as the informant was lying injured in the surgical
ward of the Hospital. At the trial there were number of eye witnesses F
examined who claimed to have identified the accused persons in the
light of a lentern burning at that time. The evidence also attributed
different parts to different accused persons. The learned Sessions
Judge after considering the evidence discarded the evidence and
acquitted all the accused persons from the charge levelled against them
and unfortunately Hon'ble the High Court without examining the G
__,J
reasons on the basis on which the learned Sessions Judge discarded
-
~

evidence dismissed the leave petition and appeal as mentioned above
and therefore we are at a disadvantage as we have not before us the
examinaton of the reasons by the High Court on the basis of which the
learned trial Court discarded the testimony and acquitted all the
accused persons. Although learned counsel for the respondent refer- H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R. -

A red to portions of the evidence to justify the order of acquittal but also
contended that in case this Court feels that the High Court should have
considered the matter and pass a reasoned order it would be proper
that we may not refer to any part of the evidence on merits nor express
any opinion. ·
B
Learned counsel for both the sides did not dispute that the inci-
dent was such wherein number of persons were involved. They also
frankly accepted that there are number of witnesses examined in the
case. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court also shows
that all the reasons on the basis of which the whole of the prosecution
evidence has been discarded is not so simple or reasons so good that
C they do not require examination. Under these circumstances therefore
without going into _the merits we feel that it would be better that the ",.-
matter be examined by the learned Judges of the High Court so that
we may have the advantage of considering the considered opinion of
the High Court on the reasons which weighed with the learned trial
Court in discarding the prosecution evidence and acquitting the
0
respondents.

In view of the facts of the case and the circumstances indicated -
above we feel that it would be better if the High Court considers the
matter and dispose it of after giving reasons and in view of this we
E think it proper not to express any opinion on any of the matters that
may deserve consideration. The appeal is therefore allowed. The
order passed by the High Court on 14th July 1983 is set aside and the
appeal alongwith petition for leave filed by the State of Bihar is Fe-
stored to the file of the High Court and it is directed that Hon'ble the
High Court after hearing the parties shall dispose of the matter giving
reasons for the conclusion!! in accordance with law. -
F '
P.S.S. Appeal allowed.