LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus SARDARA SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 861 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SARDARA SINGH (Criminal Appeal No. 1354 of 2008) AUGUST 27, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A 8 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378(3) - Application under - For grant of leave to file appeal, against c order of acquittal passed by Trial Court-Summarily dismissed by High Court - Held: Absence of reasons rendered the High _ Court order not sustainable - 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 0 to further avenue of challenge - Direction to High Court, to grant leave, as grounds raised not without substance - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - _ s. 15 - Principles of natural justice - Requirement of speaking order. ·~~ Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under s.15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was acquitted E· by the Trial Court. Appellant-State filed application under s.378(3), CrPC for grant of leave to file appeal against the F order of acquittal. High Court dismissed the application summarily by simply stating "dismissed". Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal,· the Court HELD:1.The Trial Court was required to carefully appraise the entire evidence and then come to a conc!usion. If the Trial Court was at lapse in tliis regard, the High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise G 861 H. _, 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. A by entertaining the appeal. The Trial Court on the facts of r this case did not perform its duties, as was .enjoined on it by law. The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the 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 primary t-- ground for acquittal seems to be that the alleged eye- witnesses did not support the prosecution case and, l c therefore, their presence is doubtful. Th~ High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been I I completely oblivious to .the fact that by such refusal, a • close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate D forum, has been lost once and for all. The manner in Which app,eal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court l~aves much to be desired. Reasons introduce '\ clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, _.. the .High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, E 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. There is desirability of a speaking order while dealing with. an application for grant of leave. The requirement of F indicating reasons in such case's has been judicially recognized as imperative. Judicial discipline to ~bide by .. declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Con~titution G of India, 1950. [Para 8] [865 B-H, 866 A-B] t.2. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. ;4. ~ " The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its H silence, render it virtually impossible for the Coutts to : i STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SARDARA 863 " SINGH -.( perform their appellate function or exercise the power of A ~ judicia.1 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 affected party can know why the B decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the. order made, in other words, a speaking out. The l "inscrutable face of sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Para 9] [866 C-F] c 1 ;3. In view of the principles set out above, it would be a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.