George Vs. State  Insc 33 (23 January 2002)
Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar Brijesh Kumar, J.
learned counsel for the parties.
is an appeal against the order dated September 25, 2001 passed by the Delhi High Court,
dismissing Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2001 preferred by the appellant,
passing the following order:
have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no illegality,
impropriety or jurisdictional error in the judgment under challenge.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 279 read with Section 304A IPC
and sentenced to a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default simple imprisonment for a
period of ten days, on the first count and to simple imprisonment for nine
months and a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default one month's further simple
imprisonment, on the latter count. The appeal preferred against conviction and
the sentence was dismissed as well as the revision.
learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the criminal
revision has been dismissed by the High Court by means of a non-speaking order.
It indicates no reasons to reject the pleas raised by the appellant nor there is
any indication of application of mind while deciding the revision.
submitted that inter alia, one of the pleas raised before the High Court was
that the prosecution of the appellant was bad for want of sanction by the
competent authority. It is submitted that the appellant has been working in the
police department as a Driver. At the time of occurrence he was driving the
official vehicle in performance of his official duty. Therefore, he had been
acting under colour of duty. In such circumstances, contention is, it was
obligatory to obtain sanction before initiation of the prosecution which is
otherwise barred under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. It provides that in
any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other person done under colour
of duty or in excess of any such duty or authority or it appears to have been
done in the nature as indicated above, the prosecution shall not be entertained
without previous sanction of the Administrator.
this case it is contended that such sanction has not been obtained by the
authorities. It is also submitted that there is no eye-witness account alleging
rash or negligent driving on the part of the appellant and the courts below
erred in fastening the guilt upon the appellant only by application of the
maxim "res ipsa loquitur".
are, however not examining the merits of the pleas raised before us. We are
only considering the question as to whether the revision should have been
disposed of by means of bald and non-speaking order. We feel that whatever be
the outcome of the pleas raised by the appellant on merits, the order disposing
of the matter must indicate application of mind to the case and some reasons be
assigned for negating or accepting such pleas. We find total absence of the
same in the order passed by the High Court quoted in the earlier part of this
judgment. As a matter of fact, the order says nothing except that no
illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error was found in the judgment of
the courts below. Then abruptly order "Dismissed" is passed. It is
submitted that probably the revision has been disposed of by the High Court
having the provisions of Section 115 C.P.C. in mind since the order observe
about "no jurisdictional" error having been committed by the courts
submitted that the language of Section 397 Cr.PC is different and it does not
speak of jurisdictional error which it is there all pervading under Section 115
submission further is that the scope of the two provisions is different It is
narrower under Section 115 C.P.C. Suffice it to observe that question of error
in exercise of jurisdiction may arise sometimes in criminal revisions as well.
Be that as it may, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant could not be
negated without examining them on merit The order impugned however does not
indicate any trace of application of mind on the facts or the pleas raised
before the Court. We would like to point out that we come across with such
orders quite frequently as of now. There is no need to emphasize that the
reasons, howsoever brief they may be, are to be indicated in an order disposing
of any matter, more so when such orders are subject to appeal or review before
the higher forum. In many decisions of this Court, no doubt while dealing with
orders passed in exercise of administrative or quasi-judicial power in those
cases, it has been observed that so as to indicate application of mind, the
orders should contain some reasons which also helps to the appellate or revisional
authority to appreciate the merit of the orders passed and the way the decision
has been arrived at. * -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India 1990 (4) SCC 594
2. Maharashtra State Board of S & H.S. Education versus K.S. Gandhi;
M.J. Shivani Versus State of Karnataka AIR 1995 SC 1770
counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a case reported in (2000)
10 S.C.C. 338 State of Andhra Pradesh versus Rajagopala Rao in which this Court
has set aside the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction on the ground that it amounted to a non-speaking. The case was
remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh for its disposal by means
of a speaking order. The facts, though in the said case were a bit different
since it was an order of acquittal recorded in revision upsetting the finding
of two courts below. In the case of Mahrashtra State Board (supra), following
observations were made:
recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned
consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate
or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 or the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to
see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to mete out justice
to the aggrieved person" It is true that it may depend upon the nature of
the matter which is being dealt with by the Court and the nature of
jurisdiction being exercised as to in what manner the reasons may be recorded
e.g. in an order of affirmance detailed reasons or discussion may not be
necessary but some brief indication by which application of mind may be
traceable to affirm an order would certainly be required.
ritual of repeating the words or language used in the provisions, saying that
no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is found in the judgment
under challenge without even a whisper of the merit of the matter or nature of
pleas raised does not meet the requirement of decision of a case judicially.
view of the discussion held above in our view it is a matter in which the High
Court may consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in
accordance with law. We would like to make it clear that we may not be taken to
have expressed any opinion on the merits of the pleas raised by the appellant
and the matter shall be decided by the High Court independent of observation,
if any, made on merits in this judgment.
result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court
dated25.9.2001 in Criminal Revision No.555 of 2001 is set aside. The case is
remanded to the High Court for its expeditious disposal afresh.
further ordered that the appellant shall be released on bail, forthwith during pendency
and disposal of the Revision before the High Court, on the same terms and
conditions on which he had been on bail till the disposal of the revision by
the High Court earlier.