MOHINDRA HIRE PURCHASE versus JARNAIL SINGH . ,

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 01-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 $.C.R. 837 
~ ... 
MOHINDRA HIRE PURCHASE 
A 
cl( 
v. 
~. 
JARNAIL SINGH . , 
(Criminal Appeal No'. 810 of 2003). 
DECEMBER 1, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
~ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378(3) and (4) -
Case instituted upon complaint uls. 138 of the Negotiable c 
Instruments Act, 1881 - Acquittal of accused - Application 
by compla/nant for grant of special leave to file appeal - High 
Court dismissed the application by a non-reasoned order -
-( 
Held: High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, 
howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its 
D 
mind, all the more when its order was amenable to further 
avenue of challenge - On facts, the questions in.valved were 
.,, 
not trivial - High Court directed to hear the appeal on merits 
- Administration of criminal justice - Desirability of speaking 
order - Judicial Discipline - Constitution of India, 1950 -
E 
Article 141. 
Respondent-accused was acquitted in a case 
instituted upon a complaint filed by appellant under s.138 
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Appellant filed 
F 
application under s.378 Cr.P.C for grant of special leave 
" 
to file appeal. High Court dismissed the application 
without indicating any reason. The complainant filed the 
instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court · · 
G 
HELD: 1.1. In the facts and circumstances of the 
..; 
case, the trial court was required to carefully appraise the 
entire evidence and then come to a conclu.sion. If the trial 
837 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A court was at-lapse in this regard; the High Court was 
obliged to undertake such an exercise by entertaining the 
appeal. The High Court ought to have in such 
circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a court of 
appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on record 
B independently and returned its findings objectively, as 
regards guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to 
do so. The questions involved were not trivial. The High 
Court has not given any reasons for _refusing to grant 
leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have 
c been compl~tely 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 with by the 
High Court leaves much to be de!;ired. Reasons 
0 · introduce clarity in an order. On the plainest 
consideration of jµstice, the High Court ought to have set 
forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative 
of application of its mind, all the. more when its order is 
amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of 
E reasons has rendered the High Court order not 
sustainable. [Para 5] [842-C-F] 
1.2. The requirement of indicating reasons has been 
judicially recognized as imperative. Judicial discipline to 
abide by declaration of law by this _Court, cannot be 
F 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 the instant case, 
the High Court ought to have granted leave. The High 
Court is directed to hear the appeal on merits. [Paras 5 
G and 8] [842-G-H; 843-A, G] 
State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors. (2001) 1 o sec 607; State 
of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR (1982) SC 
1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1·987) 2 
. H SCC 222 and State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004) 1 SCC 
~-
• .. r ' 
1--, __ 
r-
,... 
~ 
I 
~ 
.. 
MOHINDRA HIRE PURCHASE v. JARNAIL SINGH 
839 
'"""! 
, 
~ 
547, relied on. 
A 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All 
~ E.R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 
(1974) LCR 120, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
B 
c2001) 10 sec so1 
relied on 
Para 5 
AIR (1982) SC 1215 
relied on 
Para 5 
(1987) 2 sec 222 
relied on 
Para 5 
c 
(2004) 1 sec 547 
relied on 
Para 7 
(1971) 1 All E.R. 1148 
referred to 
Para 6 
(1974) LCR 120 
referred to 
Para 6 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 810 of 2003. 
'1 
From the final Order dated 16.1.2003 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 552-MA 
E 
of 2002. 
Rajat Sharma, Dinesh Tiwari and A.P. Mohanty for the 
Appellant. . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
~ 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to 
the judgment of a Division Bench of th

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