MANGAT RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 25-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER, D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 80 
MANGAT RAM 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2008) 
JANUARY 25, 2008 
(C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) 
Order of High Court - Dismissing criminal appeal 
observing "reasons to follow" - HELD: The High Court ought 
c not to have disposed of appeal without recording reasons -
Supreme Court has deprecated practice of disposing of 
matters and pronouncing final orders without recording 
reasons in support of such decision - It has been insisted that 
when matter is decided by a Court, reasons must be recorded 
0 .. in support' of such decision - It would be appropriate and 
desirable if all courts including High Courts keep in mind the 
principles laid down by Supreme Court and pass final orders 
only after recording reasons in support of such orders -
Appellant would be at liberty to make prayer for bail before 
High Court - Let High Court consider the same on its own 
E merits and pass an appropriate order - Bail - Administration 
of justice - Practice and Procedure. 
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat 
&Ors. [2004] 4 SCC 158; State of Punjab vs. Jagdev Singh 
F 
Talwandi [1984] 1 SCC 596; State of Punjab vs. Surinder 
Kumar [1992] 1 sec 489 - relied on. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 182 of 2008. 
G 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.5.2007 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
·Appeal No. 592-SB o~ 1997. 
H 
Satinder S. Gulati and Kamaldeep Narang for the 
Appellant. 
80 
t
) 
+ 
MANGAT RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA 
81 
I 
~ 
Rajeev Gaur "Nasem" and T. V. George for the Respondent. A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
1. Leave granted. 
2. On November 30, 2"007 when the matter was placed for B 
admission-hearing, this Court passed the following order: 
"Delay condoned. 
..., 
Issue notice on the special leave petition as on the 
application for bail. Notice will state as to why the special c 
""' 
leave petition should not be disposed of at this stage". 
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on 
May 3rd, 2007, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997 was placed 
on Daily Board of the High Court showing them to be 'Motion 
petitions'. It was, therefore, submitted that the case was not D 
placed for regular final hearing. It was, however, taken up for 
final hearing. One Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate was 
appointed as Amicus Curiae for the accused who was heard 
"f 
and the matter was disposed of. The order which was passed 
by the High Court reads as under: 
E 
"Present : Mrs. Ritu Punj, DAG, Haryana. 
Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate is appointed as 
Amicus Curiae. 
Heard. 
F 
)' 
Dismissed, reasons to follow''. 
(emphasis supplied) 
4. From the above order, passed by the High Court in 
Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, it was submitted by the G 
learned counsel that Deputy Advocate General for the State of 
.>-
Haryana was present. For the accused, Mrs. Harpreet Kaur 
Dhillon, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae on that date. 
On the same day, the matter was dismissed and the High Court 
stated "Dismissed, reasons to follow". 
H 
82 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. -·+ 
A 
5. In our opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant is 
"' 
right in submitting that the High Court ought not to have disposed 
of the appeal without recording reasons. This Court has 
deprecated the practice of disposing of matters without 
recording reasons in support of such decision. It has been 
B insisted that when the matter is decided by a Court, reasons 
must be recorded in support of such decision. It is because the 
aggrieved party may make grievance in the superior Court that 
the reasons recorded by the trial Court were non-existent, 
v 
extraneous, irrelevant, etc. The successful party, on the other 
c hand, may support the reasons recorded by the Court in his 
favour. Finally, the superior Court may also consider whether 
t-
reasons recorded by the Court in support of the order passed 
1 
by it were in consonance with law and whether interference is 
' , 
called for. If the final order is without any reason, several questions 
D may arise and it will be difficult for the parties to the proceedings 
as well as the superior Court to decide the matter one way or 
the other. This Court has, therefore, deprecated the practice of 
pronouncing final order without recording reasons in support of 
such order. 
)'-
E 
6. Before more than two decades, in State of Punjab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.