STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus SHISH RAM

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 994 · Decided: 15-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 10 S.C.R. 994 
•
+--
A 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
SHISH RAM 
r.-
(Criminal Appeal No.1091 of 2008) 
JULY 15, 2008 
..,,,. 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
J udgment!Order: Non-reasoned order -· Sustainability 
+-
of - Held: Absence of reasons renders the order, not sustain-
'~ 
c able. 
~
The Trial Court passed an order of a<:quittal. State 
filed application for grant of leave to file appeal which was 
dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, stand of State was that appli-
,, 
D 
c4 I 
cation was disposed of by non-speaking fOrder. 
' 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
' 
HELD: 1. Reasons introduce clarity in an ord~r. On 
r 
~ 
plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to 
; 
E 
I 
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 oif challenge. The 
absence of reasons has rendered the Hiuh Court's judg-
ment not sustainable. [Para 6] [995-F] 
" 
F 
~-
State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004) 1 SC:C 547 - relied on. 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All 
E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 
(1974) LCR 120 - referred to. 
G 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTIOl\I: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1091 of 2008 
µ-~ 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.5.2006 of the 
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. M.P. (M) No. 
H 
994 
> 
274/2006 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SHISH 
RAM [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
Naresh K. Sharma and J.S. Attri for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
995 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Divi-
sion Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing 
the application filed by the appellant-State for grant of leave to 
A 
B 
file appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial 
Court i.e. learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, c 
Kandaghat, Camp at Solan, H.P. in Criminal case no.133/2 of 
02/95. Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of of-
fences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). 
3. Though various points were urged in support of the ap-
D 
pea!, the primary stand was that by non-reasoned order the 
application was disposed of. 
4. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent in spite 
of the service of notice. 
5. The order which is impugned in the present appeal 
reads as follows: 
"Be registered. Heard. Dismissed." 
E 
6. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest con-
F 
sideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its 
reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an applica-
tion of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to fur-
ther avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered 
the High Court's judgment not sustainable. 
7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning 
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) 
G 
All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the 
fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery 
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (197 4 LCR 120) it was observed: "Fail-
H 
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
ure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are 
live links between the mind of the decision taker to the contro-
versy 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 
B 
tac~ of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, rende~r it virtually im-
,possible for the Courts to perform· their appel.late function or 
-~xercise the power· bf judicial review in aqjudging the validity of 
·fhe deqision. Right to reason is anJndispensabl13 part of a sound 
]udici_al system, reasoris at.least sufficient to indicate an appli-
C cation of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is 
that th~ affected party can know why the decision has gone 
agaiqst him., One of the_splutary requirements of natural justice 
is spelling out reasons for the or9~r made, ih other words, a 
speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily 
0 
incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial p13rformance. 
F 
G 
H 
i In State of Punjab vs~ Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547), 
it was observed as follows: 
.. 
"4. According to learned counsel for the appellant-State 
it was

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