Holding

The High Court's order refusing leave to appeal without reasons is not sustainable, but the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as the case does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136.

Summary

The State of Himachal Pradesh filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order that summarily dismissed its application for leave to appeal an acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, without providing any reasons. The Supreme Court examined whether a judicial order refusing leave to appeal must be accompanied by reasons and whether the absence of reasons makes the order unsustainable. It held that reasons are essential for transparency, natural justice, and for enabling appellate review, and therefore the High Court's order was not sustainable. However, considering the nature of the findings recorded by the trial court, the Court found no merit for exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 and dismissed the petition. Consequently, the High Court's order stands, but the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of recording reasons in such orders.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court must record reasons when refusing leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC.
Whether the absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378(3)
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 141

Subjects

Section 378(3) CrPCleave to appealreasons in judicial ordersnatural justiceArticle 136special leave petitionacquittaljudicial discretion

Judgment

+-
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 ofreason 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 ofjudicial 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
acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. Reasons
G
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
STATE OF H.P. v. MUSHTAQAHMAD[PASAYAT,J.] 425
State of U.P. v. Rattan and Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607; State of A
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. F
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
f
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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

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
~· ~ .. r
H before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
+
STATEOFH.P. v. MUSHTAQAHMAD[PASAYAT,J.) 427

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 547).

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.

)