Reasoned leave orders in acquittal appeals are mandatory; a summary non-speaking refusal cannot stand where substantial challenge exists.

An order refusing leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must give reasons, even if brief, because reasons show application of mind and permit appellate scrutiny. A non-speaking summary rejection of a leave application cannot be sustained where the acquittal is challenged on substantial grounds, as it frustrates effective review and departs from judicial discipline under Article 141 of the Constitution. The stated conclusion is that the High Court's summary dismissal without reasons was unsustainable and leave to appeal ought to have been granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in summarily dismissing the State's application for leave to appeal against acquittal without recording reasons, and whether leave ought to have been granted.

Analysis: Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires leave of the High Court before an appeal against acquittal can be entertained. An order refusing leave must disclose reasons, even if brief, because reasons show application of mind, enable appellate scrutiny, and preserve the discipline of decided law. A non-speaking summary rejection of a leave application, particularly where the acquittal is challenged on substantial grounds, deprives the appellate forum of effective scrutiny and cannot be sustained. The principles of judicial discipline under Article 141 of the Constitution of India require adherence to the settled requirement of a reasoned order.

Conclusion: The High Court's summary dismissal without reasons was unsustainable, and leave to appeal ought to have been granted.

Ratio Decidendi: An order refusing leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be a reasoned order, and a summary non-speaking refusal is liable to be set aside where substantial grounds for challenge exist.

---