LexJAGTAMBA DEVI versus HEM RAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 355 ~ JAGTAMBA DEVI A II. HEM RAM AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2008) FEBRUARY 4, 2008 B -y- [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] ' / ~ Judgment - Recording of reasons in - Requirement of- Criminal revision set aside by High Court without assigning reasons - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration ... - c - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 332, 353 and 504134 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 1071150 and 300. Appellant lodged a private complaint before Magistrate u/ss. 332, 353 and 504/506 IPC. The Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, issued summons to D the respondent-accused persons. Executive Magistrate ' ... directed the file of the case to be consigned. Placing ' reliance on the order of the Executive Magistrate, the accused persons filed application praying for their 'discharge on the ground _that, the file having been E consigned by Executive Magistrate·, trial cannot proceed for the same offences. Two of the accused were discharged. Revision against the order of discharge was summarily dismissed by High Court. Hence the present ...,.. appeal. F Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to Highl Court, the Court -f HELD: 1.1 Impugned order is absolutely non- reasoned. Therefore it is set aside and remitted back for G :.Y- fresh consideration. 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. The absence of 355 H )r 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. ---+-- - A reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment unsustainable. [Para 6] [358-G; 359-A] 1.2 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 B subjectivity by objectivity. The 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 c 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 affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. D 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 performance. [Para 7] [359-B, C, D, E] E Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 197 4 LCR 120 - referred to. CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal F No. 257 of 2008. + . From the Judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal R. No. 111/2006. G K. K. Mohan for the Appellant. V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents. ~. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr .. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. H .. "' - _.,. JAGTAMBA DEVI v. HEM RAM AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 357 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a A learned Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: In the year 2001, the appellant was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Village, Rare, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh and continued as such till December, 2005. B On 6.1.2003 sanction was given for construction of village road c for which the Panchayat received a sum of Rs.20,000/-. According to the appellant, the respondents herein after coming to know of the grant of sanction for Rs.20,000/- pressurized her for construction of a road to their houses instead of constructing a road for which sanction was received. Thereafter, the work on 0 the sanctioned project commenced. On 13.10.2003 when the construction was in progress, the respondents came to the work site at about 4.30 p.m. and abused the complainant in filthy and derogatory language and threatened her with dire consequenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.