LexPAUL GEORGE versus STATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PAUL GEORGE v. STATE JANUARY 21, 2002 B [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 : Section 397-Revisional Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Disposal of C revision-By means of bald and non-speaking order-Correctness of-Held: D E Revisional orders must indicate application of mind and reasons for negating or accepting pleas raised--Mere repetition that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is found in the judgment under challenge is not sufficient to decide a case judicially. The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 279 read with Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The appeal preferred against the conviction a11d sentence was dismissed. The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by means of a non-speaking order. Hence this appeal. ' Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : I.I. Whatever be the outcome of the pleas raised by the appellant on merits, the order disposing of the matter must indicate application of mind to the case and some reasons be assigned for negating F or accepting such pleas. (372-F) 1.2. The reasons, however brief they may be, are to be indicated in an order disposing of any matter, more so when such orders are subject to appeal or review before the higher forum. (373-C] G 1.3. In order to indicate application of mind, the orders should contain some reasons, which also help the appellate or revisional authority to appreciate the merit of the orders passed and the way the decision has been arrived at. [373-D] S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and MJ. Shivani H v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1995) SC 1770, relied on. 370 .. PAUL GEORGE v. STATE [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 371 .. 2. It is true that it may depend upon the nature of the matter which A is being dealt with by the Court and the nature of jurisdiction being exercised as to in what manner the reasons may be recorded e.g. in an order of affirmance detailed reasons or discussion may not be necessary but some brief indication by which application of mind may be traceable to affirm an order would certainly be required. Mere ritual of repeating the words or language used in the provisions, saying that no illegality, B impropriety or jurisdictional error is found in the judgment under challenge without even a whisper of the merit of the matter or nature of pleas raised does not meet the requirement of decision of a case judicially. (373-G; 374-A-BJ State of AP v. Rajagopala Rao, (2000] 10 SCC 338, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2002. c From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.2001 of the Delhi High Court D in Cr!. R. No. 555 of 200 I. Romy Chacko and Anil Kumar Sinha for the Appellant. Ashok Bhah and R.K. Rathore for D.S. Mehra for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal against the order dated September 25, 200 I passed by F the Delhi High Court, dismissing Criminal Revision No. 555 of2001 preferred by the appellant, passing the following order: "I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the judgment under challenge. Dismissed" The appellant has been convicted under Section 279 read with Section 304A IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. I 000, in default simple imprisonment G for a period of ten days, on the first count and to simple imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 4,000, in default one month's further simple H 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) 1 S.C.R. A imprisonment, on the latter count. The appeal preferred against conviction and the sentence was dismissed as well as the revision. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the - criminal revision has been dismissed by the High Court by means of a non- speaking order. It indicates no reasons to reject the pleas raised by the appellant B nor there is any indication of application of mind while deciding the revision. It is submitted that inter a/ia, one of the pleas raised before the High Court was that the prosecution of the appellant was bad for want of sanction by the competent authority. It is submitted that the appellant has been working in the police department as a Driver. At the time of occurrence he was ' c driving the officia
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.