STATE OF ORISSA versus DHANIRAM LUHAR

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 68 · Decided: 04-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ST A TE OF ORIS SA 
v. 
DHANIRAM LUHAR 
FEBRUARY 4, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378(3)-Leave to appeal-
Against order of acquittal-Refusal of without giving any reason-Acquittal 
C was granted despite admission of offence by accused-Held: If the trial Court 
was ai lapse in appraising entire evidence, leave to appeal ought to have been 
granted and entire evidence should have been re-appreciated-High Court 
should have given reasons for refusa/-Orissa Forest Act, 1972-Section 
27(l)(a)-Principles of Natural Justice. 
D 
Respondent-accused was prosecuted for offences punishable u/s 
27(l)(a) ofOrissa Forest Act, 1972 for having encroached land in reserved 
forest. Trial Court acquitted the accused despite his ~aving admitted the 
encroachment in his statement given u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant-State 
soug.ht leave to appeal u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C., and the same was refused by 
E High Court without assigning any reason. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. If the trial Court was at lapse in appraising entire 
evidence, the High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise by 
F entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of this case did not 
perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. 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 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. 
G The effect of the admission of the accused in the background of testimony 
of official witnesses and the documents exhibited needed adjudication in 
appeal. (70-H; 71-A, BJ 
2. High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave 
to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been completely 
H 
68 
\,~ 
., 
STATE OF ORJSSA v. DHANIRAM LUHAR [PASAYAT, J.) 
69 
oblivious to the fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of A 
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 chal~enge. The absence of reasons has B 
rendered the High Court order not sustainable. 171-B, C, DJ 
State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors., 120011 IO SCC 607; State of 
Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, AIR (1982) SC 1215; Jawahar 
Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors., 119871 2 SCC 222; Raj Kishore Jha v. 
State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 7 Supreme 152 and State of Punjab v. Bhag C 
Singh, 12004) I SCC 547, relied on. 
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) ltd. v. Crab.tree, (1974) ICR 120 
(NIRC) and Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, 119711 1 All E.R. 
1148, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1166 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.2.96 of the Orissa High Court in 
Crl. Misc. Case. No. 1122 of 1995. 
Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. The State of Orissa questions legality and 
propriety of the order by which a learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court F 
rejected the prayer seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). Following is the order 
passed on l.2.1996: 
"Leave to appeal is refused." 
The State sought leave to appeal against the order passed by learned 
S.D.J.M., Nuapada, holding that the respondent Dhaniram Luhar (hereinafter 
referred to as 'the accused') was not guilty of offences punishable under 
Section 27(l)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (in short 'the Act'). 
G 
Stand of the prosecution was that the respondent-accused had encroached H 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A about 5 acres of land for the purpose of cultivation in the Patidanger reserved 
forest. The official witnesses had deposed that the respondent-accused had 
encroached the land inside the aforesaid reserved forest within Sunabeda 
Wild Life Sanctuary and also produced sketch map of the plot under occupation 
of the accused. It is an accepted position that the accused in his statement 
B under Section 313 of the Code had admitted encroachment of Government 

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