http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

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 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:

"I have heard the learned counsel for

the petitioner. I find no illegality,

impropriety or jurisdictional error in

the judgment under challenge.

Dismissed"

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.

The 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.

It is 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

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.

In 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".

We 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 below.

It is 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 CPC .

The 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. *

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

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)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

-----------------------J

(Brijesh Kumar)

January 21, 2002