1981 (7) TMI 246 - SCH - Indian Laws

Supreme Court directs High Court to restore appeal, emphasizing need for detailed judgment.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the High Court to restore the appeal on its file and hear both sides within three months. The issue of ... Refusal to grant leave without reasons - requirement of a speaking judgment - remand for fresh consideration - entrustment of cashRefusal to grant leave without reasons - requirement of a speaking judgment - High Court erred in refusing leave to appeal without assigning reasons - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the High Court should not have refused leave to appeal on the contested question without recording the reasoning by which it concluded that the transfer entry in the cash book did not constitute entrustment. The absence of an explained view deprived the appellant and this Court of the opportunity to examine the correctness of that conclusion; the point required fuller argument and a speaking judgment for proper adjudication. The Supreme Court therefore found the refusal to grant leave without reasons to be inappropriate and set aside that order. [Paras 2, 3]Order of the High Court refusing leave to appeal set aside and the matter restored for consideration with requirement that reasons be givenRemand for fresh consideration - entrustment of cash - Appeal restored for fresh hearing on the question of entrustment of cash - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court expressly did not decide the substantive question whether Rs. 1453.18 was entrusted to the accused or whether receipt discharged official duty, noting that those questions require fuller argument and were not to be finally adjudicated at this stage. Instead, the Court directed the High Court to restore and dispose of the appeal after hearing both sides within three months, thereby remanding the matter for fresh consideration of the merits. [Paras 3]Appeal restored to the High Court for fresh hearing and final disposal within three months; no opinion expressed on the merits of entrustmentFinal Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's non-speaking refusal of leave, restored the appeal for fresh consideration, and directed the High Court to hear the appeal on its merits (including the question of entrustment) and dispose of it within three months; the Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the substantive entrustment issue. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order refusing leave to appeal, and directed the High Court to restore the appeal on its file. The High Court must hear both sides and dispose of the appeal within three months. The issue was whether the accused was entrusted with and received Rs. 1453.18 in discharge of official duty. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on this point but emphasized the need for a speaking judgment from the High Court.