LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 280 .. ) A STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN (Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2008) B FEBRUARY 22, 2008 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) " Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378 -Acquittal ul ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) rlw. s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act- c Application seeking leave to file appeal refused by High Court - On appeal, held: Refusal not justified - Trial Court failed to carefully appraise the entire evidence - The matter needed adjudication in appeal - As the order of refusal was without assigning any reason, matter remitted to High Court - D Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) rlw s.13(2). Judgment - Recording of reasons in - Requirement of - Discussed. E Precedent -Judicial discipline of abiding by the declarations of Jaw by Supreme Court, cannot be forsaken by > any authority or court on any pretext - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141 - Judicial Discipline. Respondent- accused was prosecuted u/s.7 and ..i. F 13(1)(d) r/w.s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Respondent in his statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C. accepted to have received a sum of money from the complainant party for payment of certain outstanding dues, but such plea was not taken during trap proceedings. Trial Court G acquitted him on the ground that prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe. Appellant-State filed an application u/s.378(1) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file ~ ' < appeal and the same was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. H 280 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN 281 -f Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High A Court, the Court HELD: 1.1 The impugned order is practicably unreasoned. The High Court appears to have lost sight of the fact that in the statement recorded under Section B 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent specifically accepted that he has received a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for payment of certain outstanding dues, but such a plea was not taken in the course of the trap proceedings. [Para 3] [284-A-B] c 1.2 The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial Court was at lapse in this regard, the High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise by entertaining the appeal. The trial Court on the facts of this case did not D ~ perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. The High Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave l 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 E otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The questions involved were not trivial. The effect of the admission of the accused in the background of testimony of official witnesses and the documents exhibited needed _\... adjudication in appeal. [Para 7] (284-G-H; 285-A] F 1.3 The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against 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. The G manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. 1 [Para 7] [285-B-C] 1.4 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set H 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A 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 challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, B and without the same it become lifeless. [Paras 7 and 8] [285-C-D, F] State of UP v. Battan and Ors 2001(10) SCC 607; State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC 1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987 (2) c SCC 222; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.2003(7) Supreme 152- relied on. 1.5. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision- taker to the controversy in question and the D decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sph
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.