STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SOHAN LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 20-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
SOHAN LAL AND ORS. 
APRIL 20, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.378-Appeal by State against acquittal-High Court refusing to 
C grant leave, without assigning reasons-Held, the giving of reasons for a 
decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a 
matter before courts and which is the only indication to know about the 
manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court 
concerned had really applied its mind-Al/ the more so, when refusal of le'iive 
D to appeal has the effect of foreclosing once and for all /scope for scrutiny 
of the judgment of the trial court even at the instance and hands of the first 
appellate court-The need for recording reasons for the conclusion arrived 
at by the High Court, to refuse to grant leave to appeal has nothing to do 
with the fact that the appeal envisaged under s.378 is conditioned upon the 
seeking for and obtaining of the leave from the court-The High Court, as 
E the first appellate court even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal 
was also entitled and obliged as well to scan through and if need be 
reappreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the 
court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of evidence 
on record and not merely because the High Court could. take one more 
F possible or a different view only-The provision for seeking leave to appeal 
is in order to ensure that no frivolous appeals are filed against orders of 
acquittal, as a matter of course, but that does not enable the High Court to 
mechanically refuse to grant leave by mere cryptic or readymade observations, 
with no indication of any application of mind whatsoever-Leave granted-
High Court to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 
G 
State o/Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, JT (2004) 2 SC 172, relied on. 
S.378-Provision for leave to appeal under the section and provision 
for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution-Distinction 
between -Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal 
I-I 
480 
v 
ST ATE OF RAJAS THAN v. SOHAN LAL 
481 
in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every error is A 
envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article 136 of the 
Constitution-The powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution 
are special and extra-ordinary and the main object is to ensure that there 
has been no miscarriage of justice-That cannot be said to be the same with 
an appeal envisaged under s.378 of the Code despite the fact that it is made B 
subject to the obtaining of leave to file the appeal-The requirement to 
obtain leave does not render the nature, extent or the scope of the appeal 
under the Code a precarious one-Constitution of India- Article 136. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 895 
of2002. 
c; 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.2001 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.B.Crl. A. No. 88 of 200 I. 
Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Appellants. 
Sushil Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi and Ms. Ruchi Kohli for the Respondents. D 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The above appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the 
order ofa learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dated 31.5.2001 E 
in S.B. Crl.A. No. 88 of2001 whereunder the learned Judge in the High Court 
has passed the following order while refusing to grant leave and consequently 
rejected the appeal: 
"Heard learned Public _Prosecutor. 
Perused the judgment impugned and the record available with learned F 
Public Prosectuor. I do not find any error in the judgment impugned. 
No case for grant of leave is made out, Accordingly, this leave to 
appeal is hereby rejected." 
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 
strenuously contended, despite the earlier Judgments of this court which G 
have unmistakably indicated that in cases where leave to appeal is refused 
reasons have to be assigned in support of the order that there is considerable 
difference b.etween the appeal provided for against convictions under Section 
374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Cr.P.C.") and an appeal 
provided for under Section 378, Cr.P.C. Against orders of acquittal and the H 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A inherent difference in the manner of availing of such avenue 

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