Holding

Revisional orders under Section 397 CrPC must contain reasons indicating the application of mind; a bald, non‑speaking order is invalid.

Summary

The appellant, Paul George, was convicted under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. He appealed, and the High Court dismissed his criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC by a non‑speaking order stating merely that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error was found. The Supreme Court examined whether such a bald order satisfies the requirement of a revisional order. It held that any order disposing of a revision must indicate the court’s application of mind and provide at least brief reasons for accepting or rejecting the pleas raised, even if the order is subject to further appeal. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal with the appellant released on bail pending the revision.

Issues considered

Whether a non‑speaking order under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which merely states that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is found, is valid.
Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the criminal revision without recording reasons violates the requirement of a speaking order.

Legislation cited

Subjects

revision jurisdictionnon‑speaking orderapplication of mindreasons in judgmentSection 397 CrPCcriminal procedurebailsanction under police actres ipsa loquitur

Judgment

A PAUL GEORGE
v.
STATE

JANUARY 21, 2002

B [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 :

Section 397-Revisional Jurisdiction-Exercise of-Disposal of
C revision-By means of bald and non-speaking order-Correctness of-Held:
Revisional orders must indicate application of mind and reasons for negating
or accepting pleas raised--Mere repetition that no illegality, impropriety or
jurisdictional error is found in the judgment under challenge is not sufficient
to decide a case judicially.
D
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 279 read
with Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860. The appeal preferred against
the conviction a11d sentence was dismissed. The High Court dismissed the
criminal revision filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by means of a non-speaking order. Hence this appeal.
E '
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : I.I. Whatever be the outcome of the pleas raised by the
appellant on merits, the order disposing of the matter must indicate
application of mind to the case and some reasons be assigned for negating ..
F or accepting such pleas. (372-F)

1.2. The reasons, however brief they may be, are to be indicated in
an order disposing of any matter, more so when such orders are subject
to appeal or review before the higher forum. (373-C]

G 1.3. In order to indicate application of mind, the orders should
contain some reasons, which also help the appellate or revisional authority
to appreciate the merit of the orders passed and the way the decision has
been arrived at. [373-D]

S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and MJ. Shivani
H v. State of Karnataka, AIR (1995) SC 1770, relied on.
370
PAUL GEORGE v. STATE [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 371
..
2. It is true that it may depend upon the nature of the matter which A
is being dealt with by the Court and the nature of jurisdiction being
exercised as to in what manner the reasons may be recorded e.g. in an
order of affirmance detailed reasons or discussion may not be necessary
but some brief indication by which application of mind may be traceable
to affirm an order would certainly be required. Mere ritual of repeating
the words or language used in the provisions, saying that no illegality, B
impropriety or jurisdictional error is found in the judgment under
challenge without even a whisper of the merit of the matter or nature of
pleas raised does not meet the requirement of decision of a case judicially.
(373-G; 374-A-BJ

State of AP v. Rajagopala Rao, (2000] 10 SCC 338, relied on.
c
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
93 of 2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.2001 of the Delhi High Court D
in Cr!. R. No. 555 of 200 I.

Romy Chacko and Anil Kumar Sinha for the Appellant.

Ashok Bhah and R.K. Rathore for D.S. Mehra for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E

BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an appeal against the order dated September 25, 200 I passed by F
the Delhi High Court, dismissing Criminal Revision No. 555 of2001 preferred
by the appellant, passing the following order:

"I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no illegality,
impropriety or jurisdictional error in the judgment under challenge.
G
Dismissed"

The appellant has been convicted under Section 279 read with Section
304A IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. I 000, in default simple imprisonment
for a period of ten days, on the first count and to simple imprisonment for
nine months and a fine of Rs. 4,000, in default one month's further simple H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) 1 S.C.R.

A imprisonment, on the latter count. The appeal preferred against conviction
and the sentence was dismissed as well as the revision.

The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the
criminal revision has been dismissed by the High Court by means of a non-
'
-
speaking order. It indicates no reasons to reject the pleas raised by the appellant
B nor there is any indication of application of mind while deciding the revision.

It is submitted that inter a/ia, one of the pleas raised before the High
Court was that the prosecution of the appellant was bad for want of sanction
by the competent authority. It is submitted that the appellant has been working
in the police department as a Driver. At the time of occurrence he was
c driving the official vehicle in performance of his official duty. Therefore, he
had been acting under colour of duty. In such circumstances, contention is,
'•
it was obligatory to obtain sanction before initiation of the prosecution which
is otherwise barred under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. It provides
that in any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other person done
under colour of duty or in excess of any such duty or authority or it appears
D to have been done in the nature as indicated above, the prosecution shall not
be entertained without previous sanction of the Administrator. In this case it
is contended that such sanction has not been obtained by the authorities. It ".. .I

is also submitted that there is no eye-witness account alleging rash or negligent
driving on the part of the appellant and the Courts below erred in fastening
E the guilt upon the appellant only by application of the maxim "res ipsa
loquitur".

We are, however, not examining the merits of the pleas raised before
us. We are only considering the question as to whether the revision should
have been disposed of by means of bald and non-speaking order. We feel that ' .,.
whatever be the outcome of the pleas raised by the appellant on merits, the
F
order disposing of the matter must indicate application of mind to the case
and some reasons be assigned for negating or accepting such pleas. We find
total absence of the same in the order passed by the High Court quoted in the
earlier part of this judgment. As a matter of fact, the order says nothing
except that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error was found in the
G judgment of the Courts below. Then abruptly order "Dismissed" is passed. It
is submitted that probably the revision has been disposed of by the High
Court having the provisions of Section 115 C.P.C. in mind since the order
.. _,

observe about "no jurisdictional" error having been committed by the Courts
below.

H It is submitted that the language of Section 397 Cr.PC is different and
(

>
PAUL GEORGE v. STATE [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.] 373

it does not speak of jurisdictional error which it is there all pervading under A
Section 115 CPC . The submission further is that the scope of the two
provisions is different. It is narrower under Section 115 C.P.C. Suffice it to
observe that question of error in exercise of jurisdiction may arise sometimes
in criminal revisions as well. Be that as it may, the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant could not be negated without examining them on
merit. The order impugned, however, does not indicate any trace of application B
of mind on the facts or the pleas raised before the Court. We would like to
point out that we come across with such orders quite frequently as of now.
There is no need to emphasize that the reasons, howsoever brief they may be,
are to be indicated in an order disposing of any matter, more so when such
orders are subject to appeal or review before the higher forum. In many C
decisions of this Court, no doubt while dealing with orders passed in exercise
of administrative or quasi-judicial power in those cases, it has been observed
that so as to indicate application of mind, the orders should contain some
reasons which also helps to the appellate or revisional authority to appreciate
the merit of the orders passed and the way the decision has been arrived at. 1
D
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a case
reported in [2000) 10 SCC 338, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rajagopala Rao,
,.; in which this Court has set aside the order passed by the High Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction on the ground that it amounted to a non-
speaking. The case was remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh
for its disposal by means of a speaking order. The facts, though in the said E
case were a bit different since it was an order of acquittal recorded in revision
upsetting the finding of two Courts below. In the case of Mahrashtra State
Board (supra), following observations were made:

"The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority F
concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also
aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned
acted fairly and justly to mete out justice to the aggrieved person"
G
It is true that it may depend upon the nature of the matter which is
being dealt with by the Court and the nature of jurisdiction being exercised
as to in what manner the reasons may be recorded e.g. in an order of affirrnance
I. S.N Mukheljee v. Union of India, [1990] 4 SCC 594. 2. Maharashtra State Board of
S & H.S. Education v. K.S. Gandhi; 3. MJ. Shivani v. State qf Karnataka, AiR (199)5
SC 1770. H

..
,
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] I S.C.R.

A detailed reasons or discussion may not be necessary but some brief indication
by which application of mind may be traceable to affirm an order would
certainly be required. Mere ritual of repeating the words or language used in
the provisions, saying that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is
found in the judgment under challenge without even a whisper of the merit
of the matter or nature of pleas raised does not meet the requirement of
B decision of a case judicially.

In view of the discussion held above in our view it is a matter in which
the High Court may consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order
in accordance with law. We would like to make it clear that we may not be
C taken to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the µleas raised by the
appellant and the matter shall be decided by the High Court independent of
observation, if any, made on merits in this judgment.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the
High Court dated 25.9.2001 in Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2001 is set
D aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for its expeditious disposal
afresh.

It is further ordered that the appellant shall be released on bail, forthwith
during pendency and disposal of the Revision before the High Court, on the
same terms and conditions on which he had been on bail till the disposal of
E the revision by the High Court earlier.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.