Holding

A judicial order that is not reasoned is unsustainable and must be set aside.

Summary

Jagatamba Devi, a Gram Panchayat Pradhan, filed a private complaint under IPC sections 332, 353 and 504/506 against Hem Ram and others for assaulting her while she was performing official duties. After the magistrate issued summons, an Executive Magistrate consigned the case file, deeming it time‑barred, and the accused obtained discharge. The appellant filed a criminal revision under CrPC sections 397 and 401, which the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed summarily with the order “Heard. Dismissed” and without any reasons. The Supreme Court held that a judicial order must contain reasons to show an application of mind, invoking principles of natural justice and precedents on the duty to give reasons. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s non‑reasoned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a reasoned order.

Issues considered

The validity of a High Court order dismissing a revision petition without recording any reasons.
Whether the requirement of giving reasons is a mandatory component of judicial orders under principles of natural justice.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 107, s. 150, s. 300, s. 397, s. 401
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 332, s. 353, s. 504, s. 506

Subjects

reasoned ordernatural justicejudicial reviewcriminal revisionprivate complaintnon‑reasoned judgmentdouble jeopardy

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 355

~

JAGTAMBA DEVI A
II.
HEM RAM AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 4, 2008
B
-y- [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
'
/
~

Judgment - Recording of reasons in - Requirement of-
Criminal revision set aside by High Court without assigning
reasons - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration
... - c
- Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 332, 353 and 504134 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 1071150 and 300.
Appellant lodged a private complaint before
Magistrate u/ss. 332, 353 and 504/506 IPC. The Magistrate,
after recording preliminary evidence, issued summons to D
the respondent-accused persons. Executive Magistrate
' ... directed the file of the case to be consigned. Placing
' reliance on the order of the Executive Magistrate, the
accused persons filed application praying for their
'discharge on the ground _that, the file having been E
consigned by Executive Magistrate·, trial cannot proceed
for the same offences. Two of the accused were
discharged. Revision against the order of discharge was
summarily dismissed by High Court. Hence the present
...,.. appeal. F
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to Highl
Court, the Court

-f HELD: 1.1 Impugned order is absolutely non-
reasoned. Therefore it is set aside and remitted back for G
:.Y- fresh consideration. Reasons introduce clarity in an order.
On plainest 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
355 H
)r

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

---+-- -
A reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment
unsustainable. [Para 6] [358-G; 359-A]
1.2 Reasons are live links between the mind of the
decision taker to the controversy in question and the
decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute
B 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
c 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.

,.
D 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. [Para 7] [359-B, C, D, E]
E Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
1974 LCR 120 - referred to.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
F. No. 257 of 2008. +
From the Judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal R. No.
111/2006.
K. K. Mohan for the Appellant.
G
V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents. ~.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr.. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
JAGTAMBA DEVI v. HEM RAM AND ORS. 357
[PASAYAT, J.]

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a A
learned Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court
dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: B

In the year 2001, the appellant was Pradhan of Gram
Panchayat Village, Rare, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra,
Himachal Pradesh and continued as such till December, 2005.
On 6.1.2003 sanction was given for construction of village road c
for which the Panchayat received a sum of Rs.20,000/-.
According to the appellant, the respondents herein after coming
to know of the grant of sanction for Rs.20,000/- pressurized her
for construction of a road to their houses instead of constructing

..
a road for which sanction was received. Thereafter, the work on
0
the sanctioned project commenced. On 13.10.2003 when the
"' construction was in progress, the respondents came to the work
site at about 4.30 p.m. and abused the complainant in filthy and
derogatory language and threatened her with dire
consequences. They forcibly obstructed the appellant and the E
labourers from doing any work on the village road. They caused
hurt to the appellant and by using criminal force pushed her and
thereby deterred public servant from performing her duties. On
1 22.10.2003 the Gram Panchayat filed a complaint with the
police officials but since no action was taken, a private complaint
for all~ged commission of offences punishable under Sections F
332, 353, 504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC') was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Palampur. After recording preliminary evidence, an order was
passed on 1. 7 .2004 issuing summons of the accused persons.
- _.,. On 28.9.2004, learned Executive Magistrate directed the file to G
be consigned by holding that the Kalandara had become time
barred and no further action was required. Appellant made a
grievance that no notice of the proceedings was given to her
and neither she nor her advocate was heard before the passing
of the order. Arr application was filed on 20.7.2005 by the H
r/
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
-t-
A accused persons praying for dropping charges with a contention
that the applicants cannot be tried for the same offence. ,,
j

Reference was made to the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by ;
the Executive Magistrate, Palampur. On 7.8.2005 after receiving i-

notice, appellant submitted her reply specifically contending that
B the provisions of Section 300 of the Code are not applicable to
the proceedings. It was submitted that the concept of double -t
~
.J..
jeopardy was not applicable to the proceedings under Section
107/150 of the Code. Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Palampur partly accepted the application and
c dropped proceedings against applicants 1 and 2 namely, Hem
Raj and Swroop Chand on the ground that the said applicants
.,,,
cannot be tried for the same offence. i;:..

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Criminal Revision Petition
o· was filed which was numbered as Criminal Revision No.111 of
2006. By the impugned order, the revision was dismissed in
summary manner. .• .. i
4. Learned counsel for the app~llant submitted that after f
issuance of summons the learned Magistrate ought not to have
E directed discharge of the accused persons. In any event, the
dismissal of the revision petition in a summary manner without
indicating any reason by the High Court cannot be maintained.
It is not a case where it cannot be said that there is no arguable
point. The order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial ..,..
F Magistrate is thoroughly mis-conceived in law and the High Court
ought to have interfered in the revision.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted since
there is no merit in the revision petition, the High Court has rightly
dismissed the revision petition summarily. ,...
G ~~
6. The order of the High Court reads as follows:
"Heard. Dismissed".
It is absolutely non-reasoned. Reasons introduce clarity
H in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court
., ""(
I

JAGTAMBA DEVI v. HEM RAM AND ORS. 359
[PASAYAT, J.]
-t ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order A
indicative of an application of its mind. The absence of reasons
has rendered the High Court's judgment unsustainable.
7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the 8

... ..,..
_},
fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:
"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons
are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the
controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived c
at". 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 D
the validify 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 E
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.
'\ . 8. We set aside the impugned order of the High Court and
remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration.
F

Needless to say the High Court shall pass a reasoned order in
the revision petition.
9. The appeat is allowed.
G
'---..
)>
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.