Criminal Appeal (Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.; judgment delivered by Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.), decided December 1, 2008 — Mohindra Hire Purchase (appellant/complainant) v. Jarnail Singh (respondent/accused): Challenge to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's final order dated 16.1.2003 (Crl. Misc. No. 552-MA of 2002) dismissing, by a non-reasoned order, the appellant's application under Section 378(4) CrPC for special leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a complaint case under s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Held, allowing the appeal: (i) the High Court ought to have granted leave and, as the first court of appeal, re-appreciated the entire evidence independently; the questions involved were not trivial; (ii) the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, indicative of an application of its mind, all the more as its order was amenable to further avenue of challenge — the absence of reasons rendered the order not sustainable, and the refusal lost forever a close scrutiny of the acquittal by the appellate forum; (iii) the requirement of indicating reasons has been judicially recognized as imperative; judicial discipline under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 forbids any authority or court, even the highest in a State, from forsaking declarations of law by the Supreme Court; spelling out reasons is a salutary requirement of natural justice. Relied on: State of U.P. v. Battan and Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607; State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC 1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 222; State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2004) 1 SCC 547. Referred to: Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974) LCR 120. High Court directed to hear the appeal on merits; no opinion expressed on the merits.
