Sanjay Prasad Yadav Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 330 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Prasad Yadav Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(Cr.) No. 888 of 2023
                                            ----
                  Sanjay Prasad Yadav son of Chandrashekhar Prasad Yadav,
                  resident of Village Dharmodih, PO Dharmodih, PS & Dist. Godda.
                                                        ...  Petitioner
                                         -versus-
                  The State of Jharkhand                ...  Respondent
                                            ----

                         CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG III

----

2/ 12.01.2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in G.R. No.908 of 2021 arising out of Godda (T) Police Station Case No.159 of 2011, whereby the petition under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the prosecution has been allowed. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka whereby the substance of accusation has been explained under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner is an accused in G.R. No. 908 of 2021 arising out of Godda Town Police Station Case No.159 of 2011. The First Information Report was registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 353, 307, 34/120B of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the charge was framed under Section 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The prosecution started leading evidence. In the midst of leading evidence, on 31.03.2023, a petition was filed by the prosecution for adding Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code by altering the charge.

5. From perusal of the said petition, I find that the prosecution has only mentioned that P.W. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been examined and as per their statement it is necessary to add Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and frame charge against the accused persons. This petition was taken up and disposed by the first impugned order dated 17.05.2023. It is necessary to quote the order dated 17.05.2023, which reads as follows: -

"Accused is in representation on U/S 317 Cr.P.C. which is allowed for the day only.

Heard on the petition dt. 31.3.23 U/S 216 Cr.P.C. & perused the Case record.

Petition dt 31.3.23 is allowed and section 353 I.P.C. is added.

Put up on 22.5.23 for frame of Charge U/S 353 IPC. Accused is directed to be present physically on the date fixed."

6. There cannot be a more cryptic order than the order dated 17.05.2023 whereby the trial court has added charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code on the petition made by the prosecution. It is necessary to give the reasons as to why the charge is being added or altered and what are the ingredients of offence which attract the aforesaid provision. In a most mechanical manner, in one line the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka has passed the order without even dealing with as to whether the facts and evidence which have been laid, are sufficient or attracts Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code or not. This sort of order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate is depricated. It gives a feeling that in a most casual manner the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has discharged his duty.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota versus Shukla & Brothers reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785 has held that reason is the life of law. It is necessary to quote paragraph 24 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under: -

"24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton's Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher / appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim / prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be."

8. Further, in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Versus Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, at paragraph 47 thereof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-

making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].)

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human right and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz

Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decisions is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process".

10. Giving reasons to an order is an ingredient embedded in the theory of principles of natural justice. Reasoning shows proper application of mind. Omission to give reasons in an order by which a charge is added or altered is of grave concern. A fundamental tenet of the judicial process is the articulation of clear and cogent reasons accompanying every decision, particularly when it infringes a right of the accused. Reasons serve as the cornerstone of a transparent and accountable judicial system. In the absence of explicit reasons, the order becomes susceptible to being labeled as arbitrary, capricious, or even as a violation of the principles of natural justice.

11. Thus, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.05.2023 passed in G.R. No. 908 of 2021 arising out Godda Town Police Station Case No.159 of 2011 is set aside, so is the consequential order dated 22.05.2023. The matter is remitted to the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka for fresh decision and passing an order afresh with reasons.

12. Let copies of the impugned orders along with this order be sent to the Judicial Academy, Jharkhand for the purpose of giving proper training to the Judicial Officers.

Let a copy of this order be also communicated to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

(Ananda Sen, J.) MM/Kumar/Cp-03