State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, Criminal Appeal No. 360 of 2008 (Supreme Court of India, decided 22.02.2008; Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.; P. Sathasivam, J. on the Bench). The respondent-accused, prosecuted under ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was acquitted by the Learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Kota in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2001 on the ground that demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved. The State's application for leave to appeal under s.378(1) CrPC was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) on 27.04.2006 by a practicably unreasoned order. HELD: (i) the High Court overlooked the accused's s.313 CrPC admission of receiving Rs.2,000/- from the complainant, a plea not taken during the trap proceedings; (ii) the trial Court failed to carefully appraise the entire evidence, and the High Court, as first court of appeal, ought to have granted leave and independently re-appreciated the evidence, the questions involved not being trivial; (iii) by refusing leave without reasons the High Court lost the close appellate scrutiny of the acquittal once and for all; (iv) reasons introduce clarity, the absence of reasons renders an order unsustainable, reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, the right to reason is indispensable to a sound judicial system, and judicial discipline under Article 141 requires all courts to abide by the declarations of law by the Supreme Court. Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law; appeal allowed without costs. Relied on: State of UP v. Battan (2001) 10 SCC 607; State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC 1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh (1987) 2 SCC 222; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar 2003 (7) Supreme 152; State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568. Referred to: Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All ER 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC).
