Summary
The Court set aside the High Court’s refusal of leave to appeal against an acquittal because its brief order did not show consideration of the evidence or the trial court’s findings. Merely stating that the acquittal represented a possible view did not discharge the High Court’s duty. The informant’s leave application was remitted for fresh determination; the Supreme Court did not decide guilt or itself grant leave.
Issues
- Whether a refusal of leave to appeal against acquittal was sustainable when it merely described the trial court’s view as reasonably possible without addressing the evidence and findings.
Provisions considered
- Section 378: consideration of leave to appeal against acquittal, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court required reasons demonstrating application of mind to the evidence and trial findings when deciding the leave application. (¶¶ 4, 6, 7, 8, 10)
Held
- A leave decision must briefly explain the High Court’s assessment of the nature of the evidence and the trial court’s findings. A formulaic statement that the acquittal is a possible view, without that assessment, is insufficient. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The State’s separate leave application had subsequently been rejected by following the very order challenged by the informant; that circumstance did not cure the deficient reasoning in the impugned order. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- The appeal was allowed, the High Court order of 24 September 2014 set aside, and the informant’s application for leave remitted to the Allahabad High Court for fresh determination. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; refusal of leave set aside and leave application remitted for fresh determination.