G.L. OZA J.

1. This appeal has been field in this court against the dismissal in limine of a petition field by the state of Bihar in the High Court of Judicature at Patna wherein learned judges of the High Court rejected a petition for leave to appeal against acquittal field by the state Government under section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in limine by only saying :

"Prayer for leave to appeal is refused. Appeal is dismissed."

2. Before the trial court 25 accused persons were tried on the allegation that they committed dacoity and in the commission of the said dacoity murder of one Ajab Lal Singh was committed. Consequently all of them were charged for offence under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that in the night intervening between 5th and 6th day of the June, 1980 at Village Nandlal Patti situated within P. S. Amarpur in the District of Bhagalpur, occurence took place in the house of one Jawahar Lal Singh PW 21 who lodged the first information report; his house is situated in Nandlal Patti and in the course of dacoity his brother Ajab Lal Singh was killed. The incident is said to have taken place at 12 oclock at midnight, and the information was lodged on June 6, 1980 at 8.45 a.m., at Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital as the information was lying injured in the surgical ward of the hospital. At the trial there were number of eyewitnesses examined who claimed to have identified the accused persons in the light of a later burning at that time. The evidence also attributed different parts to different accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence discarded the evidence and acquitted all the accused persons from the charge levelled against them and unfortunately Honble the High Court without examining the reasons on the basis of which the learned sessions judge discarded evidence dismissed the leave petition and appeal as mentioned above and therefore we are at the disadvantage as we have not before us the examination of the reasons by the High court on this basis of which the learned trail court discarded the testimony and acquitted all the accused persons. Although learned counsel for the respondent referred to portions of the evidence to justify the order of acquittal he also contended that in case this court feels that the high court should have considered the matter and passed a reasoned order it would be proper that we may not refer to any part of the evidence on merits nor express any opinion.

3. Learned counsel for both the sides did not dispute that the incident was such wherein in number of persons were involved. They also frankly accepted that there are number of witness examined in the case. A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court shows that all the reasons on the basis of which the whole of the prosecution evidence has been discarded is not so simple or reasons so good that they do not require examination. Under these circumstances therefore without going into the merits we feel that it would be better that the matter be examined by the learned judges of the High court so that we may have the advantage of considering the considered opinion of the High Court on the reasons which weighed with the learned trail court in discarding the prosecution evidence and acquitting the respondents.

4. In view of the facts of the case an the circumstances indicated above we feel that it would be better if the High Court considers the matter and disposes it of after giving reasons and in view of this we think it proper not to express any opinion on any of the matters that may deserve consideration. The appeal is therefore allowed. The order passed by the High Court on July 14, 1983 is set aside and the appeal along with petition for leave field by the state of Bihar is restored to the file of High Court and it is directed that Honble the High Court after hearing the parties shall dispose of the matter giving reasons for the conclusions in accordance with law.