9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 938 - SC - Indian LawsApplication for grant of leave for Order of acquittal - failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe - High Court appears to have lost sight of the fact that in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. - HELD THAT - 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 manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2003 (10) TMI 640 - SUPREME COURT . The emphasis on recording 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 an 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 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. The above position was highlighted in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar 2004 (2) TMI 687 - SUPREME COURT . Therefore the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside and matter is remitted to it. The High Court shall take up the matter afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
Issues:
Challenge to Order of Grant of Leave for Appeal under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the challenge to an order passed by a Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing an application for grant of leave to prefer an appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondent faced trial for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1978, and was acquitted by the Special Judge due to lack of evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe. The State filed an application for grant of leave, which was rejected by the High Court without providing any reasoned explanation. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of reasons in judicial decisions and the duty of the High Court to carefully appraise evidence in such cases. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 378 of the Cr.P.C, which deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in cases of acquittal. The Court emphasized that if the trial Court fails to perform its duties, the High Court must entertain the appeal, re-appraise the evidence independently, and return findings objectively. In this case, the High Court did not provide reasons for refusing to grant leave for appeal against acquittal, which resulted in a loss of the opportunity for close scrutiny of the acquittal order. The Court cited previous cases highlighting the necessity of providing reasons in such decisions to ensure clarity and judicial discipline. The judgment stressed the significance of reasons in legal decisions, quoting previous cases and emphasizing that reasons are essential for good administration and justice. The Court reiterated that the absence of reasons renders an order unsustainable and emphasized the importance of judicial discipline in following established legal principles. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court, remitting the matter back to it for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions in legal proceedings.
|
