STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus ROHITAS & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 22-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 274 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
ROHITAS & ORS. 
(Criminal AppeaJ No. 361 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378(1) - Acquittal 
ulss.498A and 3048 /PC - Application seeking leave to file 
c appeal rejected - On appeal, held: Order refusing to grant 
leave to file appeal being unreasoned, is not sustainable -
Matter remitted to High Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A 
and 3048. 
Judgment - Recording of reasons in - Requirement of -
D Discussed. 
Precedent - Held: Judicial discipline of abiding by the 
declarations of law by Supreme Court, cannot be forsaken by 
any authority or Court on any pretext - Constitution of India, 
E 1950 - Article 141 - Judicial Discipline. 
F 
Respondents were prosecuted u/s. 498A and 3048 
IPC. Trial Court acquitted them. Appellant-State filed an 
application u/s.378(1) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal. High 
Court dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The impugned order is practicably 
unreasoned. The High Court has not given any reasons 
G 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, as been lost once and 
for all. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has 
H 
274 
.. 
' 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ROHITAS & ORS. 
275 
been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be A 
desired. [Paras 5 and 6] [277-E, F, G] 
1.2 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 8 
is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence 
of reasons has rendered the High Court order not 
sustainable. Reasons is the heartbeat of every 
conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 
[Paras 6 and 7] [277-G, H; 278-A, C] 
C 
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) 
SCC 222; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2003 (7) 
D 
Supreme 152 - relied on. 
1.3 Reasons are live links between the mind of the 
decision-taker to the controversy in question and the 
decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute 
subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording E 
reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face 
of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually 
impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate 
function or exercise the power of judicial review in 
adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is 
F 
ari indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons 
at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the 
matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected 
party can know why the decision has gone against him. 
One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is G 
spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, 
a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is 
ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial 
performance. [Para 8] [278-E, F, G, H; 279-A] 
H 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar 2004(5) SCC 568 -
relied on. 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All 
E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 
B 
1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) - referred to. 
2. The requirement of indicating reasons in such 
cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. 
Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this 
Court cannot be forsaken under any pretext by any 
c authority or Court, be it even the highest Court in a State, 
oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
[Para 6] [278-8, C] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 361 of 2008. 
D 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2006 of 
~ 
the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. 
Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 193 of 2006. 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
/ 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
r 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.