STATE OF PUNJAB versus BHAG SINGH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 06-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
BHAG SINGH 
DECEMBER I 6, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Practice and Prrxedure : 
Judgment-Reasons-Giving of-Accused acquitted by trial court-
C High Court refused to grant leave to appeal under S. 378(3) Cr.P.C. 
without giving reasons-Correctness of-Held: Reasons substitute subjec-
tivity by objectivity-Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound 
judicial system-High Court order set aside-State granted leave to 
appeal. 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 141-Declaration of law-Judicial discipline to abide by-
Held: cannot be forsaken even by the highest Court in a State. 
The respondent-accused was tried for an offence under Section 
E 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The 
trial court held that the prosecution version was entirely dependent 
upon the testimony of official witnesses and since no independent 
witness was involved, the prosecution version was vulnerable and, 
therefore, acquitted the accused. The appellant-State filed an applica-
F tioit before the High Court under Section 378(3) of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal. The High Court 
dismissed application without giving any reasons. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that it was imperative 
G on the High Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer for grant 
of leave to appeal was found untenable. 
Allowing the appeal, .the Court 
HELD: I.L The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the 
H entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial Court was at 
904 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. BHAG SINGH 
905 
a lapse in this regard, the High Court was obliged to undertake such an A 
exercise by entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of this 
Case did not perform its duties, as 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 
independently and returned its findings objectively as regards guilt or B 
otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The questions involved 
were not trivial. The requirement ofindependent witness and discarding 
the testimony of official witnesses even if it was reliable, cogent or 
trustworthy needed adjudication in appeal. The High Court has not 
given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file an appeal against the C 
acquittal, and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that 
by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of 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 D 
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. (907-G-H; 908-A-Dl 
State of UP. v. Battan, [2001] 10 SCC 607; State of Maharashtra 
v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, AIR (1982) SC 1215 and Jawahar Lal E 
Singh v. Naresh Singh, (19871 2 SCC 222, relied on. 
1.2. Judicial discipline to abide 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 F 
of the Constitution. 1988-E-F) 
2. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on 
recording reasons is that ifthe decision reveals the "inscrutable face of 
the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the G 
Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial 
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 the Court. Another 
rnt\{)M\I~ is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone H 
906 
SUPREME-COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling 
out the reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 
"inscrutable force ofa sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial 
or quasi-judicial performance. [908-H; 909-A-C] 
B 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) I All E.R. 1148 
and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtr

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