Holding

A High Court's order refusing leave to appeal an acquittal under Section 378(3) CrPC must contain reasons; otherwise the order is unsustainable and leave must be granted.

Summary

The respondent, Surjit Singh, was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and acquitted under Section 13(2). The State of Haryana sought leave to appeal the acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the application without recording any reasons. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that a refusal to grant leave must be accompanied by reasons. The Supreme Court held that a High Court must give a speaking order when refusing leave to appeal an acquittal, as the absence of reasons violates judicial discipline and natural justice. Citing several precedents, the Court declared the High Court's order unsustainable and directed it to grant leave, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying corruption case. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court must record reasons when refusing leave to appeal an acquittal under Section 378(3) of the CrPC.
The effect of a non‑reasoned order on its validity and sustainability.
Whether leave to appeal should be granted in the present case in the absence of reasons.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378(1), s. 378(3)
Constitution of Indias. Article 141
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(2), s. 7

Subjects

Criminal ProcedureSection 378 CrPCAppeal against acquittalSpeaking orderReasons in judicial ordersPrevention of Corruption ActJudicial disciplineNatural justice

Judgment

[2008) 16 S.C.R. 757

STATE OF HARYANA A
V.
SURJIT SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2002)
- NOVEMBER 28, 2008
B
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANO OR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE:
c
High Court by non-speaking order refusing leave to file
appeal u/s 378(3) CrPC - HELD: The manner in which
appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court
cannot be approved - Requirement of indicating reasons. in
such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative - 0
Judicial discipline to abide by law declared by Supreme Court
cannot be forsaken under any pretext by any authority or court
- High Court directed to grant leave - Code of Criminal
~ Procedure, 1973 - s.378(3) - Judgment/order - Need to
indicate reasons - Judicial discipline - Constitution of India,
E
1950 - Article 141.

The respondent was prosecuted for committing
offences punishable ulss 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court convicted the
accused u/s 7, but acquitted him as regards the charge F
~
_J( u/s 13(2). The State moved the High Court in terms of

s.378(3) CrPC. Since the High Court summarily dismissed
the application observing, "leave to appeal declined", the
State filed the appeal.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELO: 1.1. The High Court has not given any reasons
for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal,
4
757 H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact +- ~
that by such refusaJ, -a close scrutiny of the order of
acquittal, ;by. the appellate forum; has been lost once and
for all. ~easons introduce clarity in an order. The High
Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever
B brief, in its order indicative of application of its mind, all
the more when its order is amenable to further avenue
of challen_ge. The requirement of indicating reasons in
such cases has been judicially re·cognized as imperative. f-
Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this
c Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any
authority or Court. [Para 5] [761-A-C, E-F]

State of UP. v. Battan and Ors. 2001 (10) sec
607; State
of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC
1215 and Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987
D (2) sec
222, relied on. ' ·

Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, 1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree. 'f
..
1974 LCR 120, referred to. ·
E
1.2. The High Court ought to have in the
circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first
court of ~ppeal,_ analysed the entire evidence on record
independently and returned its findings objectively as
F regards guilt or otherwise of the accused and applicability
of a particular pro.vision. It has failed to do so. The
questions involved were not trivial. The absence of ;.....
reasons has rendered the High Court order not
sustainable. The High Court direct~d to grant leave, as
grounds raised are not without substance. [Para 5 and
G 8] [761-A; 762-E]
Case Law
\
Reference:
2001 (10) sec so1 relied on ·para 5

H
STATE OF HARYANA v. SURJIT SINGH 759

,, _, A
AIR 1982 SC 1215 relied on para 5
K<j 1987 (2) sec 222 relied on para 5
1971 (1) All E.R referred to para 6
1974 LCR 120 referred to para 6 B

• CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal

- -1'
No. 195 of 2002.

From the final Order dated 9.5.2001 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 116-MA c
of 2001.

T.V. George for the Appellant.

Ratnakar Dash, Sahid Ali Rao and Javed Mahmud Rao
for the Respondent. D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ..

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the order passed by a Division Bench of· the Punjab and
Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the application under E
Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short 'Code'). Respondent faced trial for alleged commission
of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The
allegation was that the respondent-accused demanded Rs. F
_) 1500/- by way of illegal gratification for recording mutation on
the basis of purchase made by the complainant by a registered
sale-deed. On conclusions of Trial Court in Sessions Case No.
49 of 1996, learned Special Judge, Jagadhri, held that the
prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the G
accused for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, but
,j has failed to prove offence punishable under Section 13 of the

Act. Appellant moved the High Court in terms of Section 378(3)
of the Code questioning correctness of the conclusions in the
H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A judgment of the Trial Court that the pr9secution failed to prove -.-- .
offence punishable under Section 13 of the Act. As noted
above, the High Court summarily dismissed the application by
,_
observing ·as follows:

"Leave to appeal declined"
B
2. Though various points were urged in support of the
appeal, primarily it was contended that the manner of disposal •
of the application under Section 378(3) of the Code is 't- '

indefensible.·
c
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
supported the impugned order.

4. Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. deals with the power of
the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378
D
(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. as it stood then, read as follows:

"378(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section
(2) and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) and (5), .,
.
the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public
E Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from
an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any
Court other than a High Court or an order of acquittal
passed by the Court of Session in revision.

F
xxx xxx xxx
<'
(3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall )r..
be entertained except with the leave of the High Court".

5. The Trial Court was required to carefully appraise the
G entire-eviden~e and then come to a conclusion regarding
applicability of a particular provision. 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 High Court
ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and
H thereafter as a first court of appeal, analysed entire evidence
STATE OF HARYANA v. SURJIT SINGH 761
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
lllf ... ~ on the record independently and returned its findings objectively A
as regards guilt or otherwise of the accused and applicability
of a particular provision. 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 been completely oblivious to the B
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
,
-r 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 the plainest consideration of c
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 D
State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors (2001 (1 O} SCC 607). About
two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao
41
Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982 SC 1215) the desirability of a
)(.
speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of
leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons
E1
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 Article 141 of the Constitution of India, F
.A 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') .

6. 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 G
fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
J.
), (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 H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis · +~ r
I
on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the
"inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it
virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging
B 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 affected party can know why .the
·~
'f--
decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
c 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.

7. These aspects were highlighted in State of Himachal
D Pradesh v. Sardara Singh (Crl.A. @ SLP(Cr/.) 4503 of 2006).

8. In view of the principles set out above, it would be
....
.appropriate to direct the High Court to grant leave as grounds
¥
raised are not without substance. We, however, make it clear
E that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case.

9. Appeal is allowed.

RP.

).._
.. I