STATE OF HARYANA versus SURJIT SINGH

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 757 · Decided: 28-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
[2008) 16 S.C.R. 757 
STATE OF HARYANA 
V. 
SURJIT SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2002) 
- NOVEMBER 28, 2008 
[OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT ANO OR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: 
A 
B 
c 
High Court by non-speaking order refusing leave to file 
appeal u/s 378(3) CrPC - HELD: The manner in which 
appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court 
cannot be approved - Requirement of indicating reasons. in 
such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative -
0 
Judicial discipline to abide by law declared by Supreme Court 
cannot be forsaken under any pretext by any authority or court 
- High Court directed to grant leave - Code of Criminal 
~ Procedure, 1973 - s.378(3) - Judgment/order - Need to 
indicate reasons - Judicial discipline - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 141. 
The respondent was prosecuted for committing 
offences punishable ulss 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention 
E 
of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court convicted the 
accused u/s 7, but acquitted him as regards the charge 
F 
_J( u/s 13(2). The State moved the High Court in terms of 
s.378(3) CrPC. Since the High Court summarily dismissed 
the application observing, "leave to appeal declined", the 
State filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELO: 1.1. The High Court has not given any reasons 
for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, 
4 
757 
G 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact +- ~ 
that by such refusaJ, -a close scrutiny of the order of 
acquittal, ;by. the appellate forum; has been lost once and 
for all. ~easons introduce clarity in an order. The High 
Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever 
B brief, in its order indicative of application of its mind, all 
the more when its order is amenable to further avenue 
of challen_ge. The requirement of indicating reasons in 
such cases has been judicially re·cognized as imperative. f-
Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this 
c Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any 
authority or Court. [Para 5] [761-A-C, E-F] 
State of UP. v. Battan and Ors. 2001 (10) sec 607; State 
of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC 
1215 and Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987 
D (2) sec 222, relied on. 
' 
· 
E 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, 1971 (1) All 
E.R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree. 'f 
1974 LCR 120, referred to. 
· 
1.2. The High Court ought to have in the 
circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first 
court of ~ppeal,_ analysed the entire evidence on record 
independently and returned its findings objectively as 
F regards guilt or otherwise of the accused and applicability 
of a particular pro.vision. It has failed to do so. The 
questions involved were not trivial. The absence of 
;..... 
reasons has rendered the High Court order not 
sustainable. The High Court direct~d to grant leave, as 
grounds raised are not without substance. [Para 5 and 
G 8] [761-A; 762-E] 
Case Law Reference: 
\ 
2001 (10) sec so1 
relied on 
·para 5 
H 
.. 
K<j 
• -
,, _, 
-1' 
STATE OF HARYANA v. SURJIT SINGH 
759 
AIR 1982 SC 1215 
relied on 
para 5 
A 
1987 (2) sec 222 
relied on 
para 5 
1971 (1) All E.R 
referred to 
para 6 
1974 LCR 120 
referred to 
para 6 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 195 of 2002. 
From the final Order dated 9.5.2001 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 116-MA c 
of 2001. 
T.V. George for the Appellant. 
Ratnakar Dash, Sahid Ali Rao and Javed Mahmud Rao 
for the Respondent. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .. 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the order passed by a Division Bench of· the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the application under 
E 
Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in 
short 'Code'). Respondent faced trial for alleged commission 
of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The 
allegation was that the respondent-accused demanded Rs. 
F 
_) 
1500/- by way of illegal gratification for recording mutation on 
the basis of purchase made by the complainant by a registered 
sale-deed. On conclusions of Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 
49 of 1996, learned Special Judge, Jagadhri, held that the 
prosecution has succeeded in bring

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