Reasoned revisional orders are mandatory; a non-speaking dismissal was set aside and remanded for fresh decision.

A revisional court must record at least brief reasons showing conscious application of mind when disposing of criminal revision, especially where the order is open to appeal or further review. A bare statement that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is found, without discussion of the grounds raised, is insufficient and amounts to a non-speaking order. The Supreme Court held that such an order is unsustainable, set it aside, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and expeditious disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revisional order dismissing the criminal revision without reasons was sustainable and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: A revisional court must indicate application of mind and record at least brief reasons when disposing of a matter, particularly where the order is open to appeal or further review. A bare conclusion that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is found, followed by dismissal, does not satisfy the requirement of a judicial decision. The absence of any discussion of the grounds raised showed a total lack of reasoning in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The non-speaking revisional order was unsustainable and the matter was required to be considered afresh by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned revisional order was set aside, and the case was sent back for expeditious fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order must contain reasons sufficient to show conscious application of mind; a bald dismissal without discussion of the issues raised is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh decision.

---