TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court grants leave for appeal against acquittal under Orissa Forest Act, emphasizing need for reasons.</h1> <h3>State of Orissa Versus Dhaniram Luhar</h3> The High Court granted leave to the State of Orissa to file an appeal against the acquittal of the accused under the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The Court ... Legality and propriety of the order by which a learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court rejected the prayer seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Issues:1. Legality and propriety of the order rejecting the prayer for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Interpretation of Section 378 of the Code regarding the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal.3. Requirement of reasons for refusal to grant leave and the consequences of a non-reasoned order.4. Judicial discipline in providing reasons for decisions and the significance of reasons in legal judgments.Analysis:1. The State of Orissa challenged the rejection of its prayer for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 27(1)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972. The prosecution contended that the accused had encroached on government land, but the Trial Court acquitted him due to the absence of an authentic copy of the notification issued under the Act. The State argued that the Trial Court erred in its analysis and application of the law, seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal.2. Section 378 of the Code deals with the power of the High Court to grant leave in case of acquittal. The State government can direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal against an order of acquittal, but such an appeal can only be entertained with the leave of the High Court. In this case, the Trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence, necessitating the High Court to undertake an independent review upon granting leave. The High Court's refusal to grant leave without reasons was deemed indefensible, as it deprived the appellate forum of scrutinizing the order of acquittal.3. The necessity of providing reasons for refusing to grant leave was emphasized, as it introduces clarity and allows for further avenues of challenge. The absence of reasons rendered the High Court's order unsustainable, as seen in previous legal precedents. The importance of reasons in legal judgments was highlighted, with references made to the need for a speaking order to ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making.4. The judgment underscored the significance of reasons in legal and administrative decisions, citing that reasons are essential for justifying and understanding the basis of a judgment. The failure to provide reasons was equated with a denial of justice, emphasizing that reasons serve as a link between the decision-maker's thought process and the final decision. The judgment concluded by setting aside the High Court's order, granting leave to the State to file the appeal, and directing the High Court to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
