STATE OF RAJASTHANversusRAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN

                         [2008] 3 S.C.R. 280
                                                                     ..   )




A                    STATE OF RAJASTHAN
                                v.
                    RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN
                (Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2008)
                       FEBRUARY 22, 2008
B
       (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
                                                                     "
         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378 -Acquittal ul
  ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) rlw. s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-
c Application seeking leave to file appeal refused by High Court
  - On appeal, held: Refusal not justified - Trial Court failed to
  carefully appraise the entire evidence - The matter needed
  adjudication in appeal - As the order of refusal was without
  assigning any reason, matter remitted to High Court -
  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) rlw
D
  s.13(2).
         Judgment - Recording of reasons in - Requirement of -
    Discussed.
       Precedent -Judicial discipline of abiding by the
E declarations of Jaw by Supreme Court, cannot be forsaken by                     >
  any authority or court on any pretext - Constitution of India,
  1950 - Article 141 - Judicial Discipline.
        Respondent- accused was prosecuted u/s.7 and                  ..i.


F 13(1)(d) r/w.s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  Respondent in his statement u/s.313 Cr.P.C. accepted to
  have received a sum of money from the complainant party
  for payment of certain outstanding dues, but such plea
  was not taken during trap proceedings. Trial Court
  acquitted him on the ground that prosecution failed to
G
  prove demand and acceptance of bribe. Appellant-State
  filed an application u/s.378(1) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file           ~


                                                                          '   <
  appeal and the same was dismissed by High Court. Hence
  the present appeal.
H                                280
             STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN            281

     -f
                Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High     A
            Court, the Court
                 HELD: 1.1 The impugned order is practicably
            unreasoned. The High Court appears to have lost sight
            of the fact that in the statement recorded under Section
            313 Cr.P.C., the respondent specifically accepted that he B
            has received a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant
            for payment of certain outstanding dues, but such a
            plea was not taken in the course of the trap proceedings.
            [Para 3] [284-A-B]
                                                                         c
                  1.2 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
                                                                          D
    ~
            perform its duties, as was enjoined on it by law. The High
            Court ought to have in such circumstances granted leave
l
            and 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 E
            questions involved were not trivial. The effect of the
            admission of the accused in the background of testimony
            of official witnesses and the documents exhibited needed
    _\...
            adjudication in appeal. [Para 7] (284-G-H; 285-A]
                                                                          F
                  1.3 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
                                                                          G
            manner in which appeal against acquittal has been
            dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired.
            [Para 7] [285-B-C]
    1
                1.4 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
            consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set   H
    282      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2008] 3 S.C.R.


A 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. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion,
B and without the same it become lifeless. [Paras 7 and 8]
  [285-C-D, F]
        State of UP v. Battan and Ors 2001(10) SCC 607; State
    of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC
    1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987 (2)
c   SCC 222; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors.2003(7)
    Supreme 152- relied on.
       1.5. 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
D
  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
E 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.
F 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 9] [285-H; 286-A-D]
G
          State of Orissa v. Ohaniram Luhar 2004(5) SCC 568
    relied on.
         Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All      ·"'
    E.R.1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
H 1974 ICR 120(NRC) referred .to.
      STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN                  283
-t               [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

          2. The requirement of indicating reasons in such               A
     cases has been judicially recognized as imperative.
     Judicial discipline to abide 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 Constitution of India, 1950.        B
     [Para 7] [285-D, E, F]
          CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
     No. 360 of 2008.
          From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2006 of          c
     the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at
     Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 23 of 2002.
         Naveen Kumar Singh, Shashwat Gupta and Aruneshwar
     Gupta for the Appellant.
                                                                         D
          The Judgment 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
     Learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing
                                                                         E
     the application filed for grant of leave to prefer an appeal in
     terms of Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.').
          3. Background facts need to be noted in brief:
           Respondent faced trial for alleged commission for offences F
     punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2)
     of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1978 (in short the 'Act').
     Learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of
     Corruption Act, Kota in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2001 directed
     acquittal. The basic reason for directing acquittal was that the G
     prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of
""
J    bribe and also that on the day the complainant claimed to have
     paid the bribe, no work was pending with the accused.
          The appellant State filed an application for grant of leave.
                                                                         H
    284       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 3 S.C.R.


A The same has been rejected by the impugned order. To say the
  least the order is practicably unreasoned. The High Court
  appears to have lost sight of the fact that in the statement
  recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the respondent specifically
  accepted that he has received a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the
B complainant for payment of certain outstanding dues, but such
  a plea was not taken in the course of the trap proceedings.

         4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent
    though notice has been served.

c        5. Parameters to be adopted while dealing with such an
    application has been laid down by this Court in several cases.

         6. Section 378 of the Cr.P.C deals with the power of the
    High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Sub-sections (1)
    and (3) of Section 378 read as follows:
D
          "378(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)
          and subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) and (5),
          the State 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
E         other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by
          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
F         Court".
        7. 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
G Court on the facts of 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
  independently and returned its findings objectively as regards
H guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The
            STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. RAJENDRA PRASAD JAIN                    285
                       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
     -t
           questions involved were not trivial. The effect of the admission      A
           of the accused in the background of testimony of official
           witnesses and the documents exhibited needed adjudication
           in appeal. The High Court has notgiven 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,      B
           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       c
           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.
           Similar view was expressed in State of UP v. Battan and Ors
                                                                                 D
           (2001 (10) SCC 607). About two decades back in State of
           Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (AIR 1982SC1215)
           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
           recognized as imperative. The view was re-iterated in Jawahar         E
           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 or Court,
           be it even the highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141
 ~
           of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').     F
                8. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without
           the same it becomes lifeless. (See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of
           Bihar and Ors. (2003 (7) Supreme 152).
                  9. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning G
            M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
            All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the
'1          fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
            (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120)(NIRC) it was observed:
          . "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons H
    286       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
  "inscrutable face of the sphinx'', it can, by its silence, render it
B 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.
C 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.
0
         10. The above position was highlighted in State of Orissa
    v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004(5) SCC 568).
       11. Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court cannot
  be sustained and is set aside, and matter is remitted to it. The
E High Court shall take up the matter afresh and dispose of the
  same in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed without
  any order as to costs.
    K.K.T.                                          Appeal allowed.
F




                                                                             v
                                                                             '