Holding

A revision order that is unreasoned violates natural justice and must be set aside.

Summary

The appellant, an informant, lodged an FIR alleging that the respondent had raped her, invoking Sections 376 and 493 of the IPC. The respondent filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, contending that the informant's age was misstated and therefore no offence was made out. The trial court rejected the discharge, and the respondent sought revision before the Jharkhand High Court, which allowed the discharge but issued an order without any reasons. The Supreme Court held that a revision order must be reasoned; the High Court's unreasoned order violated the principles of natural justice and was therefore unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying rape case.

Issues considered

Whether a revision order of a High Court must contain reasons to satisfy the principles of natural justice.
Whether the absence of reasons renders a judicial order unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 227
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 376, s. 493

Subjects

natural justicereasoned orderrevision petitiondischarge under Sec 227 CrPCunreasoned judgmentjudicial discretionrapeCrPCIPC

Judgment

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 321

,
i- TUTUL KUMAR! SEN A
"' v
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 200~
APRIL 28, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Judgment/Order: Non reasoned order - Chargesheet -
Prayer for discharge in terms of s.227 CrPC, not accepted by
the trial court - Revision - High Court held that trial court erred
in refusing to discharge the accused - Challenged - Held: c
The order of High Court was unreasoned -Absence of reasons
rendered the order unsustainable - Principles of natural
1 ;ustice.
;
Prosecution case was that the accused-respondent
..,, D
2 committed rape of appellant-informant. After investi-
gation, police submitted charge sheet. The application for
discharge was filed primarily on the ground that age of
- the informant was not as was shown and therefore no
offence under either Sec. 376 or 493 IPC was made out.
The trial Court did not accept prayer for discharge. E
' Respondent 2 filed revision petition before High
-,;.. Court. It held that trial court was patently in error in
refusing to discharge the accused. Hence the appeal.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to F
High Court, the Court
HELD : 1. The order of the High Court wa~ practically
unreasoned. It is not certainly the way a revision petition
was to be disposed of. There was absolutely no G
discussion as to why the conclusions of the trial court in
...·'* rejecting the prayer made in terms of Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. were
unsustainable. No basis has also been indicated as to
why High Court was of the view that no offence was
321 H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R

A disclosed in the FIR. 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. The
B affected party ought to know why the decision was passed
against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural
justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. The
absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's
Judgment not sustainable. [Paras 5,6] [324-S-E; 325-A]
c 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 r-
1974 LCR 120 - referred to.
D ,,.
Case Law Reference
2004 (5) sec 568 relied on Para 5
1971 (1)All E.R.1148 referred to Para 5
E 1974 LCR 120 referred to Para 5
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 19 of 2003
From the Judgement and Order dated 13.12.2001 of the
F Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision
No. 363 of 2001.
S.K. Sinha, for
.. j
the Appellant.
Gopal Prasad, Prashant Kumar, for the Respondent.
G The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
....
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
single Judge of Jharkhand High Court allowing the petition filed
H by the respondent No.2.

\
TUTUL KUMAR! SEN V. 323
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
_,
..._..
2. The factual matrix needed to be noted in brief. A
An application was filed by the respondent No.2 praying
for discharge in terms of Sec.227 of the Code of Criminal,
Procedure 1973 (in short 'the Code'). The move was opposed
by the State. The case was registered for alleged commission
of offences punishable under Sections 493 and 376 of the Indian B
Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') on the basis of report
filed by the present appellant.

The allegation in the FIR is that after two days of Baisakh
Purnima the accused came to the house of informant, picked
her and committed rape on her. It was further the case of the c
informant that on the pretext that the accused would marry her,
she was repeatedly subjected to rape and became pregnant
and started pressurising on the accused for marriage. The
accused and his family members refused and therefore the
information was lodged. After investigation police submitted a D
"lf charge-sheet. The application for discharge was filed primarily
on the ground that age of the informant was not as was shown
and therefore no offence under either Sec. 376 or 493 IPC was
made out. The trial Court held that this was not a case where
the prayer for discharge could be accepted. E
The respondent No.2 moved the High Court by filing a
criminal revision petition and High Courtdjspose of the revision
petition with the following order:
"On going-through the impugned order and after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties, I find that a bare perusal F
of the FIR in question (Sessions Case No. 312/2001,
Ramgarh P.S.Case No.69/2000) does not disclose the
commission of any offence. In that view of the matter,
therefore, the learned trial Court (lstAsstt. Sessions Judge,
Dumka) was patently in error in refusing to discharge the G
,..+ petitioner.
This petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
~ The petitioner is discharged from the case.

·Sd/- V.K. Gupta, CJ." H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A 3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant ~
submitted that High Court has clearly erred in interfering in the
matter. The High Court's conclusion that commission of any
offence has not been disclosed is contrary to the materials on
record and on misreading of the FIR lodged.
B
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the
judgment.

5. We find that the order of the High Court is practically
unreasoned. It is not certainly the way a revision petition was to
C be disposed of. There is absolutely no discussion as to why the
conclusions of the trial Court in rejecting the prayer made in
terms of Sec.227 of the Code were unsustainable. No basis
has also been indicated as to why High Court of the view that
no offence was disclosed in the FIR. Reasons introduce clarity
D 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's judgment not
E sustainable. 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
F 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
G emphasis 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
H part of. a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to
TUTUL KUMAR! SEN V. 325
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
-1 indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. A
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 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 8
performance. This Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar
(2004 (5) sec 568) has while reiterating the view expressed in
y
the earlier cases for the past two decades emphasised the

-
necessity, duty and obligation of the High Court to record reasons
in disposing of such cases. The hallmark of a judgment/order c
and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose
the reasons for its decision and giving of reasons has been
always insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound
~
administration justice-delivery system, to make known that there
had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before D
'(
the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of
natural justice.
. .
Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised
and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum
to exercise the same either way does not c;onstitute any license
to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be E
conveyed by the well-known saying : "varying according to the
Chancellor's foot". Arbitrariness has been always held to be
''+- the anathema of judicial exercise of any power, all the more so
when such orders are amenable to challenge further before
F
higher forums. Such ritualistic observations and summary
disposal which has the effect of, at times, cannot be said to be
a proper and judicial manner of disposing of judiciously the claim
before the courts. The giving of reasons for a decision is an
essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a
G
matter before courts, and which is the only indication to
,..+ know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken,
as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its
mind.
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A 6. That being so, we set aside the order of the High Court
and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance
with law. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the case.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

D.G. Appeal disp.ossed of

-