STATE OF H.P. versus MUSHTAQ AHMAD

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 26-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+-
" 
A 
STA TE OF H.P. 
v. 
MUSHTAQ AHMAD 
MARCH 26, 2007 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYATANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--s. 378(3)-Application seeking 
leave to appeal-Against order of acquittal-Summary dismissal of the 
c application by High Court-On appeal, held: Absence of reason has rendered 
the order of High Court as not sustainable-However, in view of nature of 
finding recorded by trial court, the case cannot be interfered with under 
Article 136 of the Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. 
Judgment-Need to give reasons-Held: right to reason is an 
D indispensable part of a sound judicial system-Reasons introduce clarity in 
an otder-They are indicative of an application of mind by the Judicial 
forum-One of the statutory requirements of natural justice is speaking out 
reasons for the order made-Absence of reasons, render it impossible for the 
Court to perform its appellate power or power of judicial review in adjullging 
E 
the validity of the decision. 
Present Special Leave Petition is against the Order of High Court in 
an application under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against order of acquittal, whereby 
it had· refused to grant leave to file appeal summarily, without assigning any 
reason. 
\. 
F 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. 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 
G acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. 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, 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 (Para 3) (426-B-C) 
H 
424 
STATE OF H.P. v. MUSHTAQAHMAD[PASAYAT,J.] 
425 
State of U.P. v. Rattan and Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 607; State of A 
Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, AIR (1982) SC 1215 and 
' Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors., [1987] 2 SCC 222, relied on. 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All E.R. 1148 and 
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974) LCR 120, referred 
to. 
B 
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 subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is 
that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its C 
silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate 
function or exercise the power of judicial review in 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 effected party can know 
why the decision had gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of D 
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 4) [426-F-G; 427-A) 
State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh, [2004) 1 SCC 547, relied on. 
3. However, in view of the nature of the findings recorded by trial court 
this is not a fit case where exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the 
Constitution is called for. [Para 5] (427-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave to 
E 
) 
Appeal (Crl.) No. 1102 of2007. 
F 
f 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2006 of the High Court 
ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 593 of2006. 
J.S. Attri for the Petitioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Challenge in this special leave petition is 
to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court 
dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-State under Section 378(3) 
G 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). 
H 
+-
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the application was dismissed 
,.. 
summarily without indicating any reason. It is stated by learned counsel for 
the petitioner th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.