M/S GOYAL ENTERPRISESversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

                                   [2008] 3 S.C.R. 409
\        ,.
                             M/S GOYAL ENTERPRISES                           A
                                           v.
                         STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.
                          (Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2008)

                                 FEBRUARY 25, 2008
                                                                             B
                  (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.)

                   Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
                    s. 378(4) - Leave to appeal against acquittal -
              Application for, summarily dismissed by High Court without c
              giving any reasons - HELD: High Court ought to have set
              forth its reasons, however brief, in its order, indicative of
              application of its mind; all the more when its order is amenable
              to further avenue of challenge - Absence of reasons has
              rendered the order of High Court unsustainable, which is set D
    ~   .~
              aside - Leave granted to file appeal - High Court would
              entertain th.e appeal and after formal notice to respondents
              hear and dispose of the same in accordance with law -
              Judgment/Order of High Court- Requirement to give reasons.
                   CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal          E
              No. 377 of 2008

                   From the Order dated 26.1612006 of the High Court of
              Jharkhand afRanchi in Crl. M.P. No. 619/2006.
        ~
                   Barun Kumar Sinha, Pratibha Sinha and B.K. Satija for     F
              the Appellant.
                    P.S. Mishra, Ravi C. Prakash, Tathagat H. Vardhan,
              Upendra Mishra, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Manu Shankar Mishra and
              Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondents.                          G
                  The Order of the Court was delivered by
        ..         Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted .
                   2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
                                          409                                H
    410      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 3 S.C.R.

                                                                        ""
A   Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court refusing to grant
    leave to appeal.

        3. Stand of the appellant is that the order of the Division
  Bench summarily dismissing the application cannot be
  sustained. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other
B hand, supported the order stating that though the order is non-
  reasoned, yet this is not a fit case for exercise of power under
  Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short 'The
                                                                        ..
  Constitution').

c       4. The application before the High Court for grant of leave
    was filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Cr.P.C.').

        5. In the instant case proceeding was initiated on the basis
  of a complaint filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
D Class, Jamshedpur alleging commission of offence punishable
                                                                        ~      <
  under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
  short 'The Act'). The accused who is respondent No.2 in the
  petition was found guilty. and was accordingly, convicted and
  sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He
E was also directed to pay by way of compensation the cheque
  amount of Rs.61.860/- and Rs.62, 860/- to the complainant within
  one month from the passing of the order. The accused filed a
  petition for revision before the Sessions Court. Learned
  Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Jamshedpur,
                                                                        ~

F by order dated 2.3.2006 set aside the judgment of conviction
  and sentence as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.
  Thereafter. as noted above, application in terms of Section
  378(4) Cr.P.C. was filed. The same has been dismissed
  summarily by a Division Bench of the High Court.
G       6. 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
H against  acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves
             M/S GOYAL ENTERPRISES v. STATE OF JHARKHAND                   411
                    AND ANR. [DR. ARIJIT P7ASAYAT, J.]
'       ,,
             much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On A
             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; all the more when its order is
             amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of
             reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. B
             Similar view was expressed in State of UP v. Battan (2001
             (10) SCC 607). About two decades back in State of
        ••   Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (1981 (4) SCC
             129), the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an
             application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement c
             of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially
             recognised as imperative. The view was reiterated in Jawahar
             Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh (1987 (2) SCC 222). Judicial
             discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot
             be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or court, be it
                                                                                D
             even the highest court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the
    ~
        -    Constitution.
                  7. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without
             the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of
             Bihar 2003 (11) sec 519)                                         E
                   8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning,
             M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER
             1148, observed: "The giving of reasons is one of the
             fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery
        i    (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed:        F
             "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
             at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis
             on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the              G
             "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       H


                                                     •
    412        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 3 S.C.R.


A   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 the sphinx" is ordinarily
B   incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
           9. The above position was highlighted by this Court in State
    of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004 (1) SCC 547).
                                                                          ...
           10. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned
c judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and is set aside.
    We grant leave to the State to file the appeal. The High Court
    shall entertain the appeal and after formal notice to the
    respondents hear the appeal and dispose of it in accordance
    with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present
    appeal. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.
0
    R.P.                                             Appeal allowed.