_,
STATE OF U.P.
A
v.
KAMARUJJAMA @ MALVA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]
B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3:
Appeal against acquittal-Rejected by High Court by a judgment bereft
of reasons-Held, accused was acquitted of charges u/ss. 147, 148 and 3021 C
149 !PC by trial court-High Court should have considered the merits of the
case and recorded reasons for its decision-Impugned judgment is bereft of
reasons and falls short of the requirements of a speaking order. A confirming
judgment need consider the contentions urged before the court and record
reasons for agreeing with order under appeal-Judgment and Order of High D
Court set aside. Case remitted to High Court for fresh disposal-Judgment-
Confirming judgment-Requirements of-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 147,
148, 3021149.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
289 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29 .1 I. 99 of the Allahabad High
Court in A. No. 361 of 1996.
Y.P. Singh, C. Siddharth and Ajay K. Agrawal for the Appellant.
U.R. Lalit, Ms. Safia Khan, Shakeel Ahmed and Ms. Sandhya Goswami
for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave is granted.
The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the Judgment of the
High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 361/1996 dated November
29, 1999. The impugned Judgment reads as follows:-
E
F
G
"Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment. After H
29
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] 2 S.C.R.
A
perusal of the judgment, we do not find any good ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment challenged in this appeal. The leave
sought is refused, the appeal is accordingly rejected.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment, we are of the view that as the accused was acquitted
B charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC by the trial court, the
High Court in appeal should have considered the merits of the case and
recorded the reasons for its decision. The judgment quoted above is bereft
or reasons and falls short of the requirements of a speaking order: A
confirming judgment need consider the contentions urged before the court
C and record reasons for agreeing with the order under app!!al. We are
therefore constrained to set aside the said judgment, restore the appeal to
the file of the High Court and remit the case to the Higtr Court for fresh
disposal in accordance with law.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
D R.P.
Appeal allowed.
Lex