LexM/S GOYAL ENTERPRISES versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 409 \ ,. M/S GOYAL ENTERPRISES A v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2008) FEBRUARY 25, 2008 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378(4) - Leave to appeal against acquittal - c Application for, summarily dismissed by High Court without giving any reasons - HELD: High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, however brief, in its order, indicative of application of its mind; all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge - Absence of reasons has rendered the order of High Court unsustainable, which is set D ~ .~ aside - Leave granted to file appeal - High Court would entertain th.e appeal and after formal notice to respondents hear and dispose of the same in accordance with law - Judgment/Order of High Court- Requirement to give reasons. CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal E No. 377 of 2008 From the Order dated 26.1612006 of the High Court of Jharkhand afRanchi in Crl. M.P. No. 619/2006. ~ Barun Kumar Sinha, Pratibha Sinha and B.K. Satija for F the Appellant. P.S. Mishra, Ravi C. Prakash, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Upendra Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Manu Shankar Mishra and Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondents. G The Order of the Court was delivered by .. Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted . 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 409 H 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. "" A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court refusing to grant leave to appeal. 3. Stand of the appellant is that the order of the Division Bench summarily dismissing the application cannot be B sustained. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, supported the order stating that though the order is non- reasoned, yet this is not a fit case for exercise of power under .. Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short 'The Constitution'). c 4. The application before the High Court for grant of leave was filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Cr.P.C.'). 5. In the instant case proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st D Class, Jamshedpur alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for ~ < short 'The Act'). The accused who is respondent No.2 in the petition was found guilty. and was accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He E was also directed to pay by way of compensation the cheque amount of Rs.61.860/- and Rs.62, 860/- to the complainant within one month from the passing of the order. The accused filed a petition for revision before the Sessions Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Jamshedpur, F by order dated 2.3.2006 set aside the judgment of conviction ~ and sentence as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter. as noted above, application in terms of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. was filed. The same has been dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of the High Court. G 6. 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 of acquittal. by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal H against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves M/S GOYAL ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 411 AND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT P7ASAYAT, J.] ' ,, much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On A 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 order not sustainable. B Similar view was expressed in State of UP v. Battan (2001 •• (10) SCC 607). About two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (1981 (4) SCC 129), the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement c of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognised as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh (1987 (2) SCC 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.