Holding

An order refusing leave to appeal an acquittal that is unreasoned is unsustainable and must be set aside.

Summary

The respondents were acquitted by a trial court of offences under IPC sections 498A and 304B. The State of Rajasthan filed an application under CrPC section 378(1) seeking leave to appeal the acquittal, which the Rajasthan High Court dismissed without recording any reasons. The Supreme Court held that an order refusing leave to appeal must be reasoned; a non‑reasoned order is unsustainable and defeats the purpose of appellate scrutiny. Citing earlier decisions, the Court emphasized the constitutional duty to provide reasons as part of natural justice and judicial discipline under Article 141. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court order refusing leave to appeal an acquittal under CrPC s.378(1) must be supported by reasons.
Whether the absence of reasons renders such an order unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378(1)
Constitution of Indias. Article 141
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 498A

Subjects

AcquittalLeave to appealReasoned orderNatural justiceCrPC 378IPC 498AIPC 304BJudicial disciplineArticle 141

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 274

A STATE OF RAJASTHAN
v.
ROHITAS & ORS.
(Criminal AppeaJ No. 361 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 22, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378(1) - Acquittal
ulss.498A and 3048 /PC - Application seeking leave to file
c appeal rejected - On appeal, held: Order refusing to grant
leave to file appeal being unreasoned, is not sustainable -
Matter remitted to High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A
and 3048.
Judgment - Recording of reasons in - Requirement of -
D Discussed.
Precedent - Held: Judicial discipline of abiding by the
declarations of law by Supreme Court, cannot be forsaken by
any authority or Court on any pretext - Constitution of India,
E 1950 - Article 141 - Judicial Discipline.
Respondents were prosecuted u/s. 498A and 3048
IPC. Trial Court acquitted them. Appellant-State filed an
application u/s.378(1) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal. High
Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal.
F Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The impugned order is practicably
unreasoned. The High Court has not given any reasons
G 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, as been lost once and ..'
for all. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has
H 274
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ROHITAS & ORS. 275

been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be A
desired. [Paras 5 and 6] [277-E, F, G]
1.2 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 8
is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence
of reasons has rendered the High Court order not
sustainable. Reasons is the heartbeat of every
conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.
[Paras 6 and 7] [277-G, H; 278-A, C] C
State of UP v. Battan and Ors. 2001 (10) SCC 607; State
of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC
1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987 (2)
SCC 222; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2003 (7) D
Supreme 152 - relied on.
1.3 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 E
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 the validity of the decision. Right to reason is F
ari 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 decision has gone against him.
One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is G
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 8] [278-E, F, G, H; 279-A]
H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R.

A State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar 2004(5) SCC 568 -
relied on.

Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) - referred to.
B
2. The requirement of indicating reasons in such
cases has been judicially recognized as imperative.
Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this
Court cannot be forsaken under any pretext by any
c authority or Court, be it even the highest Court in a State,
oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
[Para 6] [278-8, C]

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 361 of 2008.
D
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2006 of ~

the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B.
Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 193 of 2006.

Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
/

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. r
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, -l,
F dismissing the application filed for grant of leave to prefer an
~ppeal in terms of Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.').
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
G Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 498 (A) and 304 (B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). It was the case of the
prosecution that because of the torture meted out for bringing
. ,_
less dowry, she was murdered. Her dead body was found in the
H well of the accused persons. It was the case of the complainant
,.
..,;

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ROHITAS & ORS . 277
..;.
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

that after killing her for dowry, she was thrown into the well. A
Charges were framed and the accused persons faced trial.
The trial court directed acquittal. Thereafter, as noted
above, the appellant-State filed an application for grant of leave,
which was rejected. Stand of the appellant was that the summary
dismissal is not sustainable in law. There is no appearance on B
behalf of the respondent-accused.
4. Section 378 of the Code deals with the power of the
High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Sub-sections (1)
and (3) of Section 378 read as follows: c
"378(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)
and subject to the provisions of sub-sectipn (3) and (5),
the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public
Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an
original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court D
other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by
the Court of Session in revision.
(3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
shall be entertained except with the leave of the High
Court". E

5. To say the least the order is practicably unreasoned.

}.. 6. The effect of the admission of the accused in the
background of testimony of official witnesses and the documents
exhibited needed adjudication in appeal. The High Court has F
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.
The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt G
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 application of its mind; all the
more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
..
A 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 State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (AIR
1982 SC 1215) the desirability of a speaking order while dealing
-
B 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
c 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, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
7. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without
the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of
D Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152). ...
8. 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
E (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120)(NIRC) 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 """
F 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
the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable
G 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
.. ~' I .,r

decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements
of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in
H other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx"
.~
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ROHITAS & ORS. 279
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial A
performance.
. 9. The above position was highlighted in State of Orissa v.
Dhaniram Luhar (2004(5) SCC 568).
10. Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court cannot B
be sustained and is set aside, and matter is remitted to it. The
High Court shall take up the matter afresh and dispose of the
same in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed without
any order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed. C