Paul George vs State

Supreme Court21 January 2002R.C. Lahoti · Brijesh Kumar

SCC(2002) 2 SCC 406
Neutral2002 INSC 37
AIRAIR 2002 SC 657
SCR[2002] 1 SCR 370

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

An order disposing of a criminal revision must contain reasons indicating application of mind to the facts and legal pleas raised before the court, and it is insufficient to dispose of the matter by merely reciting in formulaic terms that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error has been found without addressing the substantive submissions on merit. The requirement for reasons is particularly important where the order is subject to appeal or review before a higher forum, and applies even where the order amounts to an affirmance of the judgment below, though in such cases the reasons may be brief provided they show traceable evidence of judicial application of mind.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CASE NO.:Appeal (crl.) 93 of 2002

PETITIONER:PAUL GEORGE

Vs.

RESPONDENT:STATE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/2002

BENCH:R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar

JUDGMENT:

Brijesh Kumar, J.

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an appeal against the order datedSeptember 25, 2001 passed by the Delhi High Court,dismissing Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2001 preferred bythe appellant, passing the following order:

"I have heard the learned counsel forthe petitioner. I find no illegality,impropriety or jurisdictional error inthe judgment under challenge.

Dismissed"

The appellant has been convicted under Section279 read with Section 304A IPC and sentenced to a fine ofRs.1000/-, in default simple imprisonment for a period often days, on the first count and to simple imprisonment fornine months and a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default one month'sfurther simple imprisonment, on the latter count. Theappeal preferred against conviction and the sentence wasdismissed as well as the revision.

The learned counsel for the appellant hasvehemently urged that the criminal revision has beendismissed by the High Court by means of a non-speakingorder. It indicates no reasons to reject the pleas raised bythe appellant nor there is any indication of application ofmind while deciding the revision.

It is submitted that inter alia, one of the pleasraised before the High Court was that the prosecution of theappellant was bad for want of sanction by the competentauthority. It is submitted that the appellant has beenworking in the police department as a Driver. At the time ofoccurrence he was driving the official vehicle inperformance of his official duty. Therefore, he had beenacting under colour of duty. In such circumstances,contention is, it was obligatory to obtain sanction beforeinitiation of the prosecution which is otherwise barredunder Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. It provides thatin any case of alleged offence by a police officer or otherperson done under colour of duty or in excess of any suchduty or authority or it appears to have been done in thenature as indicated above, the prosecution shall not beentertained without previous sanction of the Administrator.In this case it is contended that such sanction has not beenobtained by the authorities. It is also submitted that there isno eye-witness account alleging rash or negligent driving onthe part of the appellant and the courts below erred infastening the guilt upon the appellant only by applicationof the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".

We are, however not examining the merits ofthe pleas raised before us. We are only considering thequestion as to whether the revision should have beendisposed of by means of bald and non-speaking order. Wefeel that whatever be the outcome of the pleas raised by theappellant on merits, the order disposing of the matter mustindicate application of mind to the case and some reasonsbe assigned for negating or accepting such pleas. We findtotal absence of the same in the order passed by the HighCourt quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. As amatter of fact, the order says nothing except that noillegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error was found inthe judgment of the courts below. Then abruptly order"Dismissed" is passed. It is submitted that probably therevision has been disposed of by the High Court having theprovisions of Section 115 C.P.C. in mind since the orderobserve about "no jurisdictional" error having beencommitted by the courts below.

It is submitted that the language of Section 397 Cr.PCis different and it does not speak of jurisdictional errorwhich it is there all pervading under Section 115 CPC .The submission further is that the scope of the twoprovisions is different It is narrower under Section 115C.P.C. Suffice it to observe that question of error inexercise of jurisdiction may arise sometimes in criminalrevisions as well. Be that as it may, the submissions madeon behalf of the appellant could not be negated withoutexamining them on merit The order impugned howeverdoes not indicate any trace of application of mind on thefacts or the pleas raised before the Court. We would like topoint out that we come across with such orders quitefrequently as of now. There is no need to emphasize thatthe reasons, howsoever brief they may be, are to beindicated in an order disposing of any matter, more so whensuch orders are subject to appeal or review before thehigher forum. In many decisions of this Court, no doubtwhile dealing with orders passed in exercise ofadministrative or quasi-judicial power in those cases, it hasbeen observed that so as to indicate application of mind,the orders should contain some reasons which also helps tothe appellate or revisional authority to appreciate themerit of the orders passed and the way the decision hasbeen arrived at. *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1. S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India 1990 (4) SCC 594

2. Maharashtra State Board of S & H.S. Education versus K.S. Gandhi; 3. M.J. Shivani Versus State of Karnataka AIR 1995 SC 1770

Learned 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:

"The 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. Mere 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.

In 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.

In the 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.

It is 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.

-----------------------J. (R.C. Lahoti)

-----------------------J (Brijesh Kumar)

January 21, 2002

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free