ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. By a judgment dated 14 August 2014, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, acquitted the second to sixth respondents in Sessions Trial No 2125 of 2012, where they were tried for having committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 304B and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The judgment of the trial Judge was sought to be assailed before the High Court by the appellant, the original informant, by filing an application for leave to appeal, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Leave to Appeal No 351/2014). The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the application on the basis of the following reasons:

“On a careful perusal of the judgment and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence provides no ground for interfering with the order of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view.

In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the application for leave to appeal which is rejected and consequently the Appeal is also dismissed.”

3. Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition on 17 October 2016 after condoning the delay. In pursuance of the notice, Mr Z U Khan has appeared on behalf of the second to sixth respondents.

4. Ms Sonia Mathur, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that while considering an application for the grant of leave to appeal against the order of acquittal, the High Court was required to scrutinize the evidence and findings and to determine as to whether leave should be granted to appeal. In this context, learned counsel placed reliance on the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and on the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Giriraj Dubey, (2013) 15 SCC 257.

5. On the other hand, Mr Z U Khan, learned counsel for the second to sixth respondents submits that there are concurrent findings of fact which have led to the acquittal of the accused and he sought to invite the attention of the Court to the findings which have been recorded by the trial Court.

6. Having evaluated the rival submissions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the High Court does not meet the requirements which are to be observed, consistent with the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, where the High Court hears an application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs Giriraj Dubey (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court has extensively adverted to the precedents of this Court on the subject. The earlier decisions which have been followed in the above decision are: (i) State of Maharashtra vs Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC 129; (ii) State of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar, (2004) 5 SCC 568 (iii) State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal, (2004) 5 SCC 573; (iv) State of U.P. vs Ajai Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 351; and (v) State of Maharashtra vs Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475. The principle which has been enunciated is that the High Court must set forth its reasons, indicating at least in brief, an application of mind to the nature of the evidence and the findings which have been arrived at. In other words, merely observing that the order of the trial Judge has taken a possible view without an application of mind to the evidence and the findings is not consistent with the duty which is cast upon the High Court while determining whether leave should be granted to appeal against an order of acquittal.

7. In State of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar (supra), the principles which must govern a case such as the present, where the High Court is requested to grant leave to appeal again