Holding

An order dismissing an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal must contain reasons; a non‑reasoned order is not sustainable.

Summary

The State of Himachal Pradesh sought leave to appeal an acquittal of Shish Ram by the trial court. The High Court dismissed the application with a terse, non‑reasoned order, "Be registered. Heard. Dismissed." The State contended that such an order, lacking any reasons, was unsustainable. The Supreme Court held that reasons are essential to provide clarity, satisfy natural justice, and enable judicial review, especially when the order is open to challenge under Section 378(3) of the CrPC. Citing precedents, the Court declared that a non‑reasoned order dismissing a leave‑to‑appeal application is indefensible. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court's order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a non‑reasoned order dismissing an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal is sustainable under law.
Whether the High Court is required to record reasons when exercising its power under Section 378(3) of the CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378(1), s. 378(3)

Subjects

acquittalleave to appealnon‑reasoned ordernatural justicereasons in judgmentCrPC Section 378judicial review

Judgment

[2008) 10 S.C.R. 994
+-- •
A STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
v.
SHISH RAM r.-
(Criminal Appeal No.1091 of 2008)
JULY 15, 2008 ..,,,.
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

J udgment!Order: Non-reasoned order -· Sustainability +-
of - Held: Absence of reasons renders the order, not sustain- '~

c able. ~

The Trial Court passed an order of a<:quittal. State
filed application for grant of leave to file appeal which was
dismissed.
In appeal to this Court, stand of State was that appli-
,,
D c4
cation was disposed of by non-speaking fOrder. I
'
Allowing the appeal, the Court
'r
HELD: 1. Reasons introduce clarity in an ord~r. On ~

plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to ;
E ,.,
I
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 oif challenge. The
absence of reasons has rendered the Hiuh Court's judg-
ment not sustainable. [Para 6] [995-F] ~- "
F
State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004) 1 SC:C 547 - relied on.
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All
E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
(1974) LCR 120 - referred to.
G
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTIOl\I: Criminal Appeal
µ-~
No. 1091 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.5.2006 of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. M.P. (M) No.
H 994
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHISH 995
RAM [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

274/2006 A
Naresh K. Sharma and J.S. Attri for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Divi-
sion Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing
the application filed by the appellant-State for grant of leave to
file appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial
Court i.e. learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, c
Kandaghat, Camp at Solan, H.P. in Criminal case no.133/2 of
02/95. Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of of-
fences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').
3. Though various points were urged in support of the ap- D
pea!, the primary stand was that by non-reasoned order the
application was disposed of.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent in spite
of the service of notice.
E
5. The order which is impugned in the present appeal
reads as follows:

"Be registered. Heard. Dismissed."
>
6. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest con- F
sideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its
reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an applica-
tion of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to fur-
ther avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered
the High Court's judgment not sustainable. G
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- H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A ure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are
live links between the mind of the decision taker to the contro-
versy 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
B 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 appli-
C cation 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
F follows:
"378(1) Save as othe~ise provided in sub-section (2)
and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) and (5), '
the State Gover.nment may, in any cas.e, direct the Public i-
Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an
G
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 ¢
H
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHISH 997
'•"t
RAM [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

(3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) A
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 B
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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
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
G
v. Battan and Ors (2001 (.10) SCC 607). About two
decades back in ~tate of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao
;.. '-.,(

Pritirao Cha wan (Al R 1982 SC 1215) the desirability of a
speaking order while dealing with an application for grant
of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating
H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

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
B Court, be. it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to
Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1S15Q (in short the
'Constitution')".
8 . .The appeal is allowed.
D.G. Appeal allowed.