STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus GIRIRAJ DUBEY

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 1097 · Decided: 19-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 1097 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
GIRIRAJ DUBEY 
(Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 19, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A. 
B 
s. 378(3) - Appeal against acquittal - High Court c 
declining to grant leave - Held: Order of High Court is 
irrefragably cryptic and clearly shows non-application of mind 
- Despite the clear law laid down by Supreme Court, High 
Courts, while declining to grant leave against judgments· of 
acquittal, do not indicate reasons for formation of such an 
D 
opinion - Judgments of Supreme Court, being binding on all 
courts, are required to be followed in letter and spirit - That 
is the constitutional mandate and that is the judiciai discipline 
- Order passed by High Court set aside and matter remitted 
to it to pass a cogent and reasoned order relating to grant or E 
refusal of leave - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 141 -
· Judicial discipline. 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.' 
Criminal justice - Appeal against acquittal - Held: Every 
F 
crime is an offence against the collective as a whole - It is 
the duty of courts to see that justice is done to the sufferer of 
the crime which, eventually, mitigates the cause of the 
collective and satisfies the cry of society against crime. 
The instant appeal was filed by the State against the 
G 
order of the High Court declining to grant leave to the 
State to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal 
passed by the trial court. 
1097 
H 
1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court has only stated that the 
trial court, after appreciation of the evidence, had found 
that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence 
8 against the respondent and, therefore, the judgment of 
acquittal did not suffer from infirmity. Such an order 
cannot be said to be a reasoned order. On the contrary, 
it is irrefragably cryptic and clearly shows non-application 
of mind. [para 5) [1100-H; 1101-A-B] 
C 
1.2. Despite the clear law laid down by this Court, 
High Courts, while declining to grant leave against the 
judgments of acquittal, do not indicate reasons for 
formation of such an opinion. The order has to reflect 
proper application of mind and such reflection of 
D application of mind has to be manifest from the order 
itself. It should be kept in mind that the judgments of this 
Court, being binding on all courts, are required to be 
followed in letter and spirit. That is the constitutional 
mandate and that is the judicial discipline. Consequently, 
E the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the 
matter is remitted to it to pass a cogent and reasoned 
order relating to grant or refusal of leave. [para 12-13) 
[1104-C-D, G; 1105-A-C] 
State of Maharashtra v. Vitha/ Rao Pritirao Chawan 
F (1981) 4 SCC 129; State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar 2004 
(2) SCR 68 = (2004) 5 SCC 568; State of Rajasthan v. Sohan 
Lal and Others 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 480 = 2004 (5) 
SCC 573; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajai Kumar 2008 
(2) SCR 552 = 2008 (3) SCC 351; State of Maharashtra v. 
G Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar 2008 (13) SCR 750 = 2008 (9) 
sec 475 - relied on 
2. It is the duty of every court to bear in mind that 
when a crime is committed, though an individual is 
H affected or, on some occasions, a group of individuals 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. GIRIRAJ DUBEY 1099 
become victims of the crime, yet in essentiality, every 
A 
crime is an offence against the collective as a whole. It 
creates a stir in the society. The degree may be different 
depending on the nature of the offence. That makes the 
duty of the High Courts to see that justice is done to the 
sufferer of the crime which, eventually, mitigates the 
B 
cause of the collective and satisfies the cry of the society 
against the crime. [para 12] [1104-D-F] 
Case Law Reference: 
(1981) 4 sec 129 
2004 (2) SCR 68 
relied on 
relied on 
2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 480 relied on 
2008 (2) SCR 552 
relied on 
2008 (13) SCR 750 
relied on 
para 6 
para 7 
para 8 
para 9 
para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 319 of 2013. 
c 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 04.07 .2012 of the High 
E 
Court of Madhya Pradesh, bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal 
No. 1835 of 2012. 
Samir Ali Khan, C.D. Singh for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
F 
2. Questioning the assailability and substantiality of the 
order
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.