2003 JTR(SC) 1278
2004 13 AIC 40 ; 2004 1 AICLR 871 ; 2004 AIR(SC) 1203 ; 2004 AIR(SCW) 102 ; 2004 48 AllCriC 308 ; 2004 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 604 ; 2004 1 ApexCJ(SC) 283 ; 2004 2 BBCJ(SC) 26 ; 2004 1 BLJR 482 ; 2004 1 CCR(SC) 39 ; 2004 2 CriCC 252 ; 2004 CriLR 228 ; 2004 CriLR(Cal) 468 ; 2003 4 Crimes(SC) 45 ; 2004 1 Crimes(SC) 1 ; 2004 CrLJ 916 ; 2003 164 ELT 137 ; 2004 164 ELT 137 ; 2004 1 JCC 60 ; 2004 1 JKJ(SC) 17 ; 2004 5 JT 482 ; 2004 1 MPWN 366 ; 2004 1 RCR(Cri) 304 ; 2003 10 Scale 765 ; 2004 1 SCC 547 ; 2004 SCC(Cri) 341 ; 2003 SCR 904 ; 2004 KHC 388 ; 2003 8 Supreme 611
2003(8) Supreme 611
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
State of Punjab -Appellant
versus
Bhag Singh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 1997
Decided on 16-12-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Bimal Roy Jad, Ms. Sumita Pandit, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R.C. Kaushik, Advocate (NP), Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
It is imperative for High Court to give reasons if leave to appeal against acquittal is to be declined.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.378(3)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.18
(A) The appeal challenges the High Court's refusal to grant leave to question the acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read in conjunction with the prosecution of an offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Section 378(3) mandates that leave of the High Court is prerequisite for an appeal against an order of acquittal, and the High Court is duty-bound to ensure that such leave is granted only after a proper evaluation of the merits. The impugned order, being a bare, non-speaking order devoid of reasoned analysis, fails to satisfy the procedural and substantive requirements under the Code, especially where the trial courts acquittal hinged on the absence of an independent witness and the reliability of official testimony.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) an appeal against acquittal requires mandatory leave of the High Court; (ii) a speaking order with reasoned findings is indispensable for judicial review and natural justice; (iii) denial of leave must be based on reasoned analysis to enable appellate scrutiny; (iv) the High Court must actively appraise the evidence and record objective findings before refusing leave; and (v) procedural fairness demands that decisions impacting substantive rights articulate the basis for rejection.
Facts of the case:
The accused was tried for possession of one kilogram of opium in contravention of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The seizure occurred at a through fare, and the accused, upon apprehension, declined an offer for a search in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate, choosing to rely on the Sub-Inspector of Police. Chemical examination confirmed the presence of opium. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution version wholly dependent on official witnesses and inherently vulnerable due to the absence of an independent witness at the scene. The State filed an appeal, but the High Court refused leave without assigning any reasons.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order was held unsustainable because it failed to provide reasons for refusing leave, rendering it impervious to appellate review and oblivious to the requirements of Section 378(3) of the Code and principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that reasons are a fundamental aspect of good administration and judicial duty, and their absence defeats the purpose of an appeal and obstructs judicial discipline.
Issues:
Whether an order refusing leave to appeal against acquittal is sustainable when it is unreasoned and does not indicate any application of mind by the High Court, in violation of Section 378(3) of the Code and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court must grant reasoned orders when disposing of petitions for leave to appeal against acquittal, as the refusal itself is subject to scrutiny. An unreasoned order denying leave undermines the appellate framework and violates the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, necessitating setting aside the impugned order and granting leave to appeal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the High Court is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
(A) The appeal challenges the High Court's refusal to grant leave to question the acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read in conjunction with the prosecution of an offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Section 378(3) mandates that leave of the High Court is prerequisite for an appeal against an order of acquittal, and the High Court is duty-bound to ensure that such leave is granted only after a proper evaluation of the merits. The impugned order, being a bare, non-speaking order devoid of reasoned analysis, fails to satisfy the procedural and substantive requirements under the Code, especially where the trial courts acquittal hinged on the absence of an independent witness and the reliability of official testimony.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) an appeal against acquittal requires mandatory leave of the High Court; (ii) a speaking order with reasoned findings is indispensable for judicial review and natural justice; (iii) denial of leave must be based on reasoned analysis to enable appellate scrutiny; (iv) the High Court must actively appraise the evidence and record objective findings before refusing leave; and (v) procedural fairness demands that decisions impacting substantive rights articulate the basis for rejection.
Facts of the case:
The accused was tried for possession of one kilogram of opium in contravention of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The seizure occurred at a through fare, and the accused, upon apprehension, declined an offer for a search in the presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate, choosing to rely on the Sub-Inspector of Police. Chemical examination confirmed the presence of opium. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution version wholly dependent on official witnesses and inherently vulnerable due to the absence of an independent witness at the scene. The State filed an appeal, but the High Court refused leave without assigning any reasons.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order was held unsustainable because it failed to provide reasons for refusing leave, rendering it impervious to appellate review and oblivious to the requirements of Section 378(3) of the Code and principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that reasons are a fundamental aspect of good administration and judicial duty, and their absence defeats the purpose of an appeal and obstructs judicial discipline.
Issues:
Whether an order refusing leave to appeal against acquittal is sustainable when it is unreasoned and does not indicate any application of mind by the High Court, in violation of Section 378(3) of the Code and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi:
The High Court must grant reasoned orders when disposing of petitions for leave to appeal against acquittal, as the refusal itself is subject to scrutiny. An unreasoned order denying leave undermines the appellate framework and violates the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, necessitating setting aside the impugned order and granting leave to appeal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the High Court is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Refusal to grant leave to question acquittal in terms of Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) is the subject matter of challenge. According to the appellant-State of Punjab the one line "No merit. Dismissed" order of the High Court without assigning reasons therefor does not meet the requirements of law.
2. Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act ). Prosecution version was that on 26.4.1995 accused was found in illicit possession of a large quantity of opium weighing one kilogram which was being carried in a bag. The officer who apprehended the accused informed him that if he wanted the bag to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer of police or a magistrate, he could indicate his choice. The accused however reposed confidence on the Sub-Inspector of Police who had apprehended the accused. Samples were collected and sent for chemical examination. As the samples were found to contain opium, on completion of investigation accused was challenged to face trial. During his examination under Section 313 of the Code the accused denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.
3. The trial Court held that the prosecution version was entirely dependent upon the testimony of official witnesses and since no independent witness was involved, the prosecution version was vulnerable. It was noted that the search and seizure was made at a through fare and it is unbelievable that no independent witness was available. The trial Court therefore directed acquittal. The appellant-State filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which refused to grant leave and disposed of the application for leave in the following manner:
"Heard. No merit.
Dismissed."
4. According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it was imperative on the High Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer for grant of leave was found untenable. In the absence of any such reasons the order of the High Court is indefensible. Section 378(3) of the Code deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code reads as follows:
"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 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 Court".
5. 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 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 guilt or otherwise of the accused. It has failed to do so. The questions involved were not trivial. The requirement of independent witness and discarding testimony of official witnesses even if it was reliable, cogent or trustworthy needed adjudication in appeal. 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 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 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 U.P. v. Battan and Ors. (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 recognized as imperative. The view was reiterated 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 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 ).
6. 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 (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 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 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. 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.
7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the impugned 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.
Appeal allowed.
***************
00037
00038