SUNIL @ BALO DAS AND ORS versus RAJESH DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 21-02-2008 · 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. 170 
SUNIL @ BALO DAS AND ORS. 
II. 
RAJESH DAS AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 21, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Judgment/Order: 
Non-reasoned order- Judicial propriety of- Helq: Single 
C Judge of the High Court arrived at abrupt conclusion without 
analyzing evidence and indicating reasons thereof - Reasons 
substitute subjectivity by objectivity - Right to reason is an 
indispensable part of a sound judicial system - Spelling out 
reasons is one of the statutory requirements of natural justice 
D - Reasons are essential for the Courts to perform appellate 
functions/exercise power of judicial review - Absence of 
reasons rendered judgment of High Court unsustainable -
Matter remitted to High Court for disposal afresh in accordance 
with law- Principle of natural justice - Requirement of- Power 
E of Judicial Review - Exercise of 
F 
Appellants allegedly committed offence of 
kidnapping minor girl. They were acquitted by trial Court. 
The High Court remitted the matter to trial Court to decide 
it afresh in accordance with law. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that approach of the High 
Court is clearly erroneous as no· reasons have been 
indicated to show that there was any infirmity in the trial 
Court's judgment; that the revision was not maintainable 
G at the instance of the complainant; and that the exercise 
of revisional jurisdiction has to be within limited 
parameters. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
170 
SU\'JIL @ BALO DAS AND ORS. v. RAJESH DAS 
171 
~ 
AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of the impugned order A 
shows that no reason has been indicated and/or there 
has been no analysis of the evidence recorded. The abrupt 
conclusions arrived at show non-application of mind .. 
(Para - 5) [173-D, E] 
1.2 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest B 
I 
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. The absence of reasons has 
rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. c 
(Para - 6) [173-E, F] 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All 
E.R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 
(1974) LCR 120 - relied on. 
.. )<· 
2. The matter is remitted to the High Court to dispose D 
of' the revision petition afresh in accordance with law. 
(Para - 8) [17 4-D] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 356 of 2008. 
E 
· From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2007 of 
the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 
656 of 2004. 
~ 
S.B. Sanyal, Sudhanshu Saran, Shalini Chandra, Shefali 
Jain and Akhilesh Kumar Pandey for the Appellants. 
F 
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Aabhas Parimal, Neeraj K. Singh, Rajesh 
K. Singh and Abha R. Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliv~red by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
,..._ . 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court setting aside 
the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the 
present appellants by allowing the revision filed by respondent H 
172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A No.1-Rajesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'informant'). Learned 
counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the 
High Court is clearly erroneous. No reasons.have been indicated 
to show that there was any infirmity in the trial Court's judgment. 
In fact, according to him, the trial Court's judgment was a very 
8 detailed one and ample reasons were indicated. The High Court 
without even pointing out as to what infirmity existed, in a 
mechanical manner directed the matter the matter to be re-
heard. Abrupt conclusion was arrived at that the trial Court had 
not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective 
C and by mis-appropriation of evidence, directed acquittal. It is 
submitted that it has not been indicated as to how the evidence 
has not been appreciated in the right perspective and/or how 
there was mis-appropriation of evidence. It is pointed out that 
the revision was not maintainable at the instance of the 
0 complainant. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction has to be 
within limited parameters. Unless there are glaring defects in 
the procedure or manifest errors of law leading to great mis-
carriage of justice, there is no scope for interference.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.