IMPORTANT POINT
High Court should pass a speaking order in exercise of its criminal revisional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.-Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an appeal against the order dated September 25, 2001 passed by the Delhi High Court, dismissing Criminal Revision No. 555 of 2001 preferred by the appellant, passing the following order :

"I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the judgment under challenge.

Dismissed"

3. The appellant has been convicted under Section 279 read with Section 304A IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for a period of ten days, on the first count and to simple imprisonment for nine months and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default one month s further simple imprisonment, on the latter count. The appeal preferred against conviction and the sentence was dismissed as well as the revision.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the criminal revision has been dismissed by the High Court by means of a non-speaking order. It indicates no reasons to reject the pleas raised by the appellant nor there is any indication of application of mind while deciding the revision.

5. It is submitted that inter alia, one of the pleas raised before the High Court was that the prosecution of the appellant was bad for want of sanction by the competent authority. It is submitted that the appellant has been working in the police department as a Driver. At the time of occurrence he was driving, the official vehicle in performance of his official duty. Therefore, he had been acting under colour of duty. In such circumstances, contention is, it was obligatory to obtain sanction before initiation of the prosecution which is otherwise barred under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. It provides that in any case of alleged offence by a police officer or other person done under colour of duty or in excess of any such duty or authority or it appears to have been done in the nature as indicated above, the prosecution shall not be entertained without previous sanction of the Administrator. In this case it is contended that such sanction has not been obtained by the authorities. It is also submitted that there is no eye-witness account alleging rash or negligent driving on the part of the appellant and the courts below erred in fastening the guilt upon the appellant only by application of the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".

6. We are, however not examining the merits of the pleas raised before us. We are only considering the question as to whether the revision should have been disposed of by

means of bald and non-speaking order. We feel that whatever be the outcome of the pleas raised by the appellant on merits, the order disposing of the matter must indicate application of mind to the case and some reasons be assigned for negating or accepting such pleas. We find total absence of the same in the order passed by the High Court quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. As a matter of fact, the order says nothing except that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error was found in the judgment of the courts below. Then abruptly order "Dismissed" is passed. It is submitted that probably the revision has been disposed of by the High Court having the provisions of Section 115 CPC in mind since the order observe about "no jurisdictional" error having been committed by the courts below.

7. It is submitted that the language of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is different and it does not speak of jurisdictional error which it is there all prevading under Section 115 CPC. The submission further is that the scope of the two provisions is different. It is narrower under Section 115 CPC. Suffice it to observe that question of error in exercise of jurisdiction may arise sometimes in criminal revisions as well. Be that as it may, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant could not be negated without examining them on merit. The order impugned however does not indicate any trace of applica