2008 (8) TMI 538 - SC - Indian Laws

Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. 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.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to High Court's dismissal of application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding acquittal under the NDPS Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which summarily dismissed the State's application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. concerning the acquittal of the respondent in a case under the NDPS Act.

2. The trial court had acquitted the respondent citing lack of credibility in the evidence of official witnesses. The State filed an application under Section 378 for appeal, which was dismissed without reasons by the High Court.

3. The appellant contended that the High Court's manner of disposal was against established legal principles, citing precedents requiring a detailed examination in such cases.

4. The respondent argued that there was no merit in the case, justifying the High Court's rejection of the application for leave to appeal.

5. Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. deals with the High Court's power to grant leave in cases of acquittal, emphasizing the need for a detailed review of evidence and reasons for granting or refusing leave to appeal.

6. The Supreme Court held that the trial court failed to properly assess the evidence, necessitating the High Court to grant leave for appeal and independently re-evaluate the evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

7. The High Court's failure to provide reasons for denying leave to appeal against acquittal was criticized by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the importance of reasons in judicial orders for clarity and accountability.

8. Citing previous judgments, the Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of providing reasons for decisions, highlighting that reasons are essential for transparency, accountability, and the right of the affected party to understand the basis of the decision.

9. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have granted leave for appeal as the grounds raised were substantial and required a detailed examination based on legal principles and precedents.

10. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the High Court to grant leave for appeal against the acquittal, emphasizing the importance of following established legal principles and providing reasons for judicial decisions.