- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 24 September 2007
- Bench
- A. K. Mathur, Markandey Katju
- Result
- Appeal allowed.
Headnote
Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973:
-'(- Appiication /or leave to appeal against acquittal-Rejected by High Court by a cryptic order-Held: While.disposing of an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, it is expected that High Court should pass a speaking order showing due application of mind-Since that has not been done in the instant case, order of High Court is set aside and the matter remitted back to it for passing an order after showing due application of mind
Delay-Condonation of-260 days delay in filing Special Leave Petition by Government-Held: Ordinarily Court would not condone such a long delay-Such kind of delay causes grave injustice to the parties-However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, delay condoned-Constitution of India-Article 136.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
This appeal is barred by time by 260 days. Ordinarily we may not have condoned such a long delay, and we do not appreciate the delays caused in filing Special Leave Petitions by the Government before this Court. Such kind of delay causes grave injustice to the parties. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Leave to appeal No. 165 of2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had passed a cryptic order dismissing the application for leave to appeal against as acquittal judgment without giving proper reasons and without showing due application of mind. While disposing of an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, it is expected that the High Court should pass a speaking order showing due application of mind. Of Course the said order need not be as elaborate as a full fledged judgment, but at least briefly some reasons should be given. That has not been done in this case. Hence we cannot sustain the impugned order dated 14th July 2005 passed by the High Court. We set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for passing an order after showing due application of mind.
The appeal is accordingly, allowed.
Case details
Arising from
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1293of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2005 of the High Court ..j of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in.D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 165of2005.
Appearances
Manish Kumar and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant.
B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Mamta Jain, Neha Tiwari and Dr. Vipin Gupta for the Respondents. )---
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.