Holding

A High Court order dismissing an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal without recording reasons is not sustainable; leave must be granted.

Summary

Sardara Singh was acquitted by the trial court of offences under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The State of Himachal Pradesh filed an application under Section 378(3) of the CrPC seeking leave to appeal the acquittal. The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the application summarily with a one‑word order, "Dismissed", and gave no reasons. The Supreme Court held that such a bare order is unsustainable because it fails to provide a speaking order, violating principles of natural justice and the requirement to record reasons. The Court emphasized that reasons are essential to indicate the exercise of judicial mind, especially when the order is amenable to further challenge. Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to grant leave to appeal and re‑appreciate the evidence, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can dismiss an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 378(3) CrPC without recording reasons.
Whether the absence of a speaking order renders the High Court's dismissal unsustainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 378(3)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 15

Subjects

Criminal ProcedureSection 378 CrPCAcquittalSpeaking orderNatural justiceReasons in judgmentNDPS Act

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 861

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH A
v.
SARDARA SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1354 of 2008)
AUGUST 27, 2008
8
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378(3) -
Application under - For grant of leave to file appeal, against c
order of acquittal passed by Trial Court-Summarily dismissed
by High Court - Held: Absence of reasons rendered the High
_Court order not sustainable - 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 - Direction to High Court, to
0
grant leave, as grounds raised not without substance -
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - _
s. 15 - Principles of natural justice - Requirement of speaking
order. ·~~
E·
Respondent faced trial for alleged commission of
offences punishable under s.15 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was acquitted
by the Trial Court. Appellant-State filed application under
s.378(3), CrPC for grant of leave to file appeal against the F
order of acquittal. High Court dismissed the application
summarily by simply stating "dismissed". Hence the
present appeal.
Allowing the appeal,· the Court
G
HELD:1.The Trial Court was required to carefully
appraise the entire evidence and then come to a
conc!usion. If the Trial Court was at lapse in tliis regard,
the High Court was obliged to undertake such an exercise
861 H.
_,
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A by entertaining the appeal. The Trial Court on the facts of r
this case did not perform its duties, as was .enjoined on
it by law. The High Court ought to have in such
circumstances granted leave and thereafter as a first court
of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record
B independently and returned its findings objectively as
regards guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to
do so. The questions involved were not trivial. The primary t--
ground for acquittal seems to be that the alleged eye-
witnesses did not support the prosecution case and,
therefore, their presence is doubtful. Th~ High Court has
l
c
not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file
appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been I
I

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
D
app,eal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High
Court l~aves much to be desired. 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
E 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. There is
desirability of a speaking order while dealing with. an

F
application for grant of leave. The requirement of
indicating reasons in such case's has been judicially
recognized as imperative. Judicial discipline to ~bide by
declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under
any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest
.
Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Con~titution
G of India, 1950. [Para 8] [865 B-H, 866 A-B]
t.2. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. ;4.

"
~

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 Coutts to :
H
i
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SARDARA 863
" -.(
SINGH

perform their appellate function or exercise the power of A
~
judicia.1 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 B
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 sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with
l a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Para 9] [866 C-F] c
1;3. In view of the principles set out above, it would be
appropriate to direct the High Court to grant leave as
grounds raised are not without substance. [Para 11] [866-G]
State of UP v. Battan and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607;
D
t State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR (1982)
~ SC 1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987)
92 SCC 222 and State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004) 1
sec
•. 547 - relied on .
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All E
E.R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
(197 4) LCR 120 - referred to
Case Law Reference
· AIR (1982) SC 1215 relied on Para 8
...J (1987) 92 sec 222 relied on
F •/

Para 8
(2001) 1o sec 607 relied on Para 8
(1971) 1 All E.R. 1148 referred to · . Para 9
(1974) LCR 120 referred to P~.ra 9 G'
~

-•
....
•
... (2004) 1 sec 547 relied on Para 10
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1354 of 2008
Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant. H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS f
864 [2008] 12 S.C.R. ,,I--
)-
).-'
A K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.. Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted .
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
B Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing
the application filed by the State in terms of Section 378(3) of ~
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').
The application was dismissed summarily by simply stating
L
"Dismissed". '\
.· .. ~c 1·'

3. The respondent faced trial for alleged commission of
t
offences punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs
\
,
.
' and Psychotropic Substances Act, .1985 (in short the 'NDPS
Act') .
. . ·o 4. The tria! court directed acquittal on the ground that the
evidence of the official witnesses cannot be accepted and
.. ~
' accordingly the acquittal was recorded. The application under .
Section 378 vvas fiied which as noted above was dismissed
summarily.
~
E 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
~"·,...:...-
manner of disposal of the application is contrary to the decision~
of this court in a large number of cases.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there
F is no merit in the case and, therefore, the High Court was justified
in rejecting the application for grant of leave. ~
7. Section 378 (3) of the Cr.P.C. deals with the power of
the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378
(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. as it stood then, reads as follows:
G
"378(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)
and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) and (5),
the Stat~ Government may, in any case, direct the Public
Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an
original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. SARDARA 865
SINGH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by A
the Court of Session in revision.
(3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
shall be entertained except with the leave of the High
Court".
B
8. The trial Court was required to carefully appraise the
~
entire evidence and then come to a conclusion. If the trial Court
was at lapse in this regard the High Court was obliged to
undertake such an exercise by entertaining the appeal. The
trial Court on the facts of this case did not perform its duties, as c
was enjoined on it by law. The High Court ought to have in such
circumstances granted leave arid thereafter as a first court of
appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence on the record
independently and returned its findings objectively as regards
guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The
D
questions involved were not trivial. The primary ground for
• acquittal seems to be that the alleged eye-witnesses did not
-~
support the prosecution case and, therefore, their presence is
doubtful. 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, E
a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum,
has been lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal
against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves
much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On
plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have F
4 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 no\ sustain_able.
Similar view was expressed in State of UP. v. Battan and Ors G
I {2001 {10) SCC 607). About two decades back in State of
Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982 SC
1215) the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an
application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement
·of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A recognized as imperative. The. view was re-iterated in Jawahar
Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987 (2) SCC 222).
Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court,
cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority br Court,
be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141
B of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').
9. 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
fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
C (Oudley) 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
at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis
D on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable
face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtu~lly
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
E 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·
F speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily
incongruous with a -judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
· 10. These aspects were highlighted in State of Pun}ab v.
. Bhag Singh (2004(1) sec 547) ·
G 11. In view of the principles set out above it would be
appropriate to direct the High Court to grant leave as grounds ~
raised are not without substance. · ·
.12. Appeal is allowed.
H B.B.B. Appeal allowed.