2004 (4) TMI 641 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge the judgment of High Court in the refusal of leave to appeal - difference between the appeal provided for against convictions u/s 374 of the CrPC and an appeal provided for u/s 378 CrPC - HELD THAT - Any judicial power has to be judiciously exercised and the mere fact that discretion is vested with the court/forum to exercise the same either way does not constitute any licence to exercise it at whims or fancies and arbitrarily as used to be conveyed by the well known saying varying according to the chancellors foot . Arbitrariness has been always held to be the anathema of judicial exercise of any power all the more so when such orders are amenable to challenge further before higher forums. This Court has repeatedly laid down that as the First Appellate Court the High 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 possible or a different view only. Except the above in the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. It has been on more than one occasion reiterated that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal in favour of any party as such and it is not that any and every error is envisaged to be corrected in exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 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 u/s 378 CrPC. despite the fact that it is made 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 as sought to be assumed on behalf of the appellant. Consequently this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. Conclusion The judgment underscores the importance of recording reasons for decisions particularly in cases involving the refusal of leave to appeal. It clarifies the differences between various types of appeals and emphasizes the need for a thorough and just judicial process.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the refusal of leave to appeal by the High Court in a criminal case, focusing on the necessity of recording reasons for such decisions and the differences between appeals against convictions and appeals against acquittals.

Refusal of Leave to Appeal:
The State of Rajasthan appealed against the High Court's order refusing leave to appeal in a criminal case. The High Court's refusal was based on not finding any error in the judgment impugned. The respondents argued that reasons must be assigned for such refusals, emphasizing the importance of recording reasons in disposing of cases. The Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of recording reasons, stating that it is fundamental for a sound administration of justice. The Court highlighted that the State's role in criminal cases is to vindicate the cause of society and uphold the rule of law. It criticized the High Court's practice of summarily refusing leave without providing detailed reasons, as it forecloses the statutory right of appeal and hampers proper judicial consideration.

Judicial Discretion and Reasons for Refusal:
The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial power must be judiciously exercised, and discretion should not be wielded arbitrarily. The Court rejected the analogy drawn between Article 136 of the Constitution (special leave to appeal) and appeals under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., stating that the nature and scope of these appeals differ significantly. While Article 136 aims to prevent miscarriage of justice, appeals under Section 378 are subject to obtaining leave but do not diminish the quality of the appeal. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and granted leave for the case to be considered on its merits without delay.

Conclusion:
The judgment underscores the importance of recording reasons for decisions, particularly in cases involving the refusal of leave to appeal. It clarifies the differences between various types of appeals and emphasizes the need for a thorough and just judicial process.