STATE OF H P Vs. MUSHTAQ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this special leave petition is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').

(2.) Grievance of the petitioner is that the application was dismissed summarily without indicating any reason. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has in many cases deprecated the practice of such dismissal.

(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 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. vs. Battan and Others (2001) 10 SCC 607). About two decades back in State of Maharashtra vs. 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 re-iterated in Jawahar Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh and Others (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').