SUNIL @ BALO DAS AND ORSversusRAJESH DAS AND ORS.

                         [2008] 3 S.C.R. 170


A                SUNIL @ BALO DAS AND ORS.
                                 II.
                     RAJESH DAS AND ORS.
                (Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 2008)
                       FEBRUARY 21, 2008
B
        (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

         Judgment/Order:
        Non-reasoned order- Judicial propriety of- Helq: Single
C Judge of the High Court arrived at abrupt conclusion without
  analyzing evidence and indicating reasons thereof - Reasons
  substitute subjectivity by objectivity - Right to reason is an
  indispensable part of a sound judicial system - Spelling out
  reasons is one of the statutory requirements of natural justice
D - Reasons are essential for the Courts to perform appellate
  functions/exercise power of judicial review - Absence of
  reasons rendered judgment of High Court unsustainable -
  Matter remitted to High Court for disposal afresh in accordance
  with law- Principle of natural justice - Requirement of- Power
E of Judicial Review - Exercise of
          Appellants allegedly committed offence of
    kidnapping minor girl. They were acquitted by trial Court.
    The High Court remitted the matter to trial Court to decide
    it afresh in accordance with law. Hence the present appeal.
F
       Appellants contended that approach of the High
  Court is clearly erroneous as no· reasons have been
  indicated to show that there was any infirmity in the trial
  Court's judgment; that the revision was not maintainable
G at the instance of the complainant; and that the exercise
  of revisional jurisdiction has to be within limited
  parameters.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court

H                               170
                  SU\'JIL @ BALO DAS AND ORS. v. RAJESH DAS                   171
       ~                 AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

                    HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of the impugned order A
               shows that no reason has been indicated and/or there
               has been no analysis of the evidence recorded. The abrupt
               conclusions arrived at show non-application of mind ..
               (Para - 5) [173-D, E]
                    1.2 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest B
   I           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 reasons has
               rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
               (Para - 6) [173-E, F]                                                 c
                    Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All
               E.R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
               (1974) LCR 120 - relied on.
.. )<·               2. The matter is remitted to the High Court to dispose D
               of' the revision petition afresh in accordance with law.
               (Para - 8) [17 4-D]
                    CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
               No. 356 of 2008.
                                                                                     E
                   · From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2007 of
               the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.
               656 of 2004.
    ~
                    S.B. Sanyal, Sudhanshu Saran, Shalini Chandra, Shefali
               Jain and Akhilesh Kumar Pandey for the Appellants.                    F

                    Ajit Kumar Sinha, Aabhas Parimal, Neeraj K. Singh, Rajesh
               K. Singh and Abha R. Sharma for the Respondents.
                    The Judgment of the Court was deliv~red by
                                                                                     G
                    Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
  ,..._    .        2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
               learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court setting aside
               the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the
               present appellants by allowing the revision filed by respondent       H
    172       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 3 S.C.R.


A No.1-Rajesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'informant'). Learned
  counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the
  High Court is clearly erroneous. No reasons.have been indicated
  to show that there was any infirmity in the trial Court's judgment.
  In fact, according to him, the trial Court's judgment was a very
8 detailed one and ample reasons were indicated. The High Court
  without even pointing out as to what infirmity existed, in a
  mechanical manner directed the matter the matter to be re-               ...       -
  heard. Abrupt conclusion was arrived at that the trial Court had
  not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective
C and by mis-appropriation of evidence, directed acquittal. It is
  submitted that it has not been indicated as to how the evidence
  has not been appreciated in the right perspective and/or how
  there was mis-appropriation of evidence. It is pointed out that
  the revision was not maintainable at the instance of the
  complainant. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction has to be
0
  within limited parameters. Unless there are glaring defects in
  the procedure or manifest errors of law leading to great mis-
  carriage of justice, there is no scope for interference. It is pointed
  out that the alleged occurrence took place on 20.11.1994 and a
  complaint was filed after about 13 months i.e. on 11.12.1995.
E
        3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that
  though the High Court has not referred to the evidence in detail,
  the conclusions of the trial Court are sufficient to show that the
  appellants were guilty of alleged offence.                                -;.. j
F         4. The impugned order of the High Court reads as follows:
          "Heard.
          This revision has been filed by the informant against the
          impugned Judgment by which, the accused persons were
G         acquitted from the charges under Section 364, 366A, 368
          and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code.
          It appears from the impugned Judgment that though the
          trial Court held that the minor girl Sarita Kumari was
          kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her father but
H
                    SUNIL @ BALO DAS AND ORS. v. RAJESH DAS                   173
           ,,.            AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"                     by discarding the evidence of P.Ws. on the ground that         A
                      they are hearsay and further rejecting the evidence of the
                      prosecutrix Sarita Kumari on the ground that the same
                      was contradictory to her statement made under Section
                      164 Cr.P.C., acquitted the accused persons holding that
                      the prosecution failed to produce any reliable evidence.       B
~                     In my view, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
     ·1 .
                      on record in its right perspective and by misappreciation
                      of evidence has acquitted the accused persons.
\

                      Accordingly, without giving any specific finding on the        c
                      evidence on record, the matter is being remitted to the
                      Trial Court by setting aside the impugned order with a
                      direction to the Trial Court to consider the materials and
                      evidence on record afresh in its right perspective and
                      pass a fresh Judgment in accordance with law after hearing
                                                                                     D
    ... )<            the parties on the basis of the materials already on record
                      within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
                      a copy of this order."
                       5. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that no
                 reason has been indicated and/or there has been no analysis         E
                 of the evidence recorded. The abrupt conclusions arrived at
                 show non application of mind.
                       6. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
    f ~          consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
                 its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an         F
                 application of its mind. The absence of reasons has rendered
                 the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
                       7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
                 M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
                                                                                     G
                 All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the
                 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
                                                                                     H

t
I
    174       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008) 3 S.C.R.

                                                                         '
A 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
  virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate
B 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.
                                                                             +
                                                                                   r
  Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
c 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 order. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx"
  is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial
  performance.
D        8. Above being the position, the impugned order is clearly
    unsustainable and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the            "{   ..
    High· Court to dispose of the revision petition afresh in
    accordance with law.
          9. The appeal is allowed.
E
    S.K.S.                                          Appeal allowed.