2010 Supreme(SC) 287

2010 (2) Supreme 708
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. LODHA and DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, — JJ.
Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Bihar & Anr. — Respondents
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 662 OF 2010
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6563 of 2007]
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 670 OF 2010
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6821 of 2007]
Decided on : 01-04-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Competent authority to appeal from an order of acquittal in two types of cases referred to in sub-section (2) is the central government and the authority of the state government in relation to such cases has been excluded.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of Statutes – In expounding Acts of parliament, where words are express, plain and clear, the words ought to be understood according to their genuine and natural signification and import, unless by such exposition a contradiction or inconsistency would arise in the Act by reason of some subsequent clause, from whence it might be inferred the intent of the Parliament was otherwise; and this holds with respect to penal, as well as other Acts. (Para 17)

       (1766) Parker 227; (1836) 2 Meeson and Welsby 191; (1842) 9 Meeson and Welsby 378; (1844) XI Clark & Finnelly 85; (2002) 7 SCC 273 – Relied upon

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378(1) (Pre-amendment) – Expression “save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)” – These words have no other meaning in the context but to qualify the operation of sub-section (1) and take out of its purview two types of cases referred in sub-section (2) – By construing Section 378 in a manner that permits appeal from an order of acquittal by the state government in every case, except two class of cases mentioned in sub-section (2), full effect would be given to the exception (clause) articulated in the opening words. (Para 26)

       97 C.L.R.465 – Relied upon

       (c) Interpretation of Statutes – When a statute is repealed and re-enacted and words in the repealed statute are reproduced in the new statute, they should be interpreted in the sense which had been judicially put on them under the repealed Act – However, if the latter statute does not use the same language as in the earlier one, the alteration must be taken to have been made deliberately. (Paras 28 and 29)

       (1955) 2 SCR 603; AIR 1949 PC 120 – Relied upon

       (1976) 1 SCC 385 – Distinguished

       (d) Interpretation of Statute – Language of the statute should be read as it is and any construction that results in rejection of words has to be avoided; the effort should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the Legislature – However, such rule of construction of statutes is not without exceptions. (Para 32)

       (1875-76) L.R. 1 CPD 691; (1886) 11 AC 627 – Relied upon

       (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378(1) and (2) (Pre-amendment) – The exception (clause) in the beginning of sub-section (1) has been expressly added in Section 378 and it is not possible to harmonise the word “also” occurring in sub-section (2) with that – Therefore no sensible meaning can be given to the word “also” and the said word has to be treated as immaterial – In order that the exception (clause) expressly stated in the opening words of sub-section (1) might be preserved, it is necessary that word “also” in sub-section (2) is treated as immaterial. (Para 34)

       (f) Section 378 (1) – Words “in any case” means “in all cases” – However, the opening words put fetters on state government in the matter of appeal in two types of cases mentioned in sub-section (2). (Para 35)

       (g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378(1) and (2) r/w section 24 and Section 3 of the 1946 Act – Central and state governments appoint their Public Prosecutors and one has no control over the other. The public prosecutor, thus, has to be associated in an appeal from an order of acquittal. It is the central government which is concerned with the investigation of the case by Delhi Special Police Establishment and its ultimate result. It is for this reason that sub-section (2) of Section 378 provides for appeal against acquittal in two types of cases mentioned therein on the direction of the central government by its public prosecutor – Competent authority to appeal from an order of acquittal in two types of cases referred to in sub-section (2) is the central government and the authority of the state government in relation to such cases has been excluded. (Paras 37 and 40)

       (1977) 3 SCC 25 – Distinguished

       (h) Interpretation of judgment – The essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein. (Para 39)

       AIR 1968 SC 647 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       1.Both Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav and Smt. Rabri Devi, husband and wife, have held the office of Chief Minister of the State of Bihar. Allegedly for acquisition of assets - both moveable and immoveable - by corrupt or illegal means disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period from March 10, 1990 to March 28, 1995 and April 4, 1995 to July 25, 1997, a FIR was lodged by CBI against both of them. CBI investigated into the matter and on August 19, 1998, a chargesheet was filed against Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav and Smt. Rabri Devi in the Court of Special Judge, CBI (AHD), Patna.

       2.The charges were framed against Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that during the said period, he acquired assets which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and on 31st March, 1997 he had been in possession of pecuniary resources of property in his name and in the name of his wife and children to the extent of Rs. 46,26,827/- which he could not satisfactorily account for. Smt. Rabri Devi was charged under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act for abetting her husband in the commission of the said offence. The Court of Special Judge, CBI (AHD), Patna, upon conclusion of trial, vide its judgment dated December 18, 2006 acquitted the accused holding that prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against them.

       3.It is pertinent to notice here that as per CBI, the central government after considering the conclusions and findings of the trial court took a conscious and considered decision that no ground whatsoever was made for filing an appeal against the judgment of the trial court.

       4.On February 17, 2007 the state government, however, filed leave to appeal against the order of acquittal before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. On behalf of the accused a preliminary objection was raised with regard to maintainability of appeal by the state government. The learned Single Judge overruled the preliminary objection and held that appeal preferred by the state government was maintainable. It is from this order that two appeals by special leave have been preferred. One of the two appeals is by the accused and the other by CBI.

       5.The main question, in light of the section 378, Cr. P.C. (prior to amendment 2005) is, as to whether the State Government has competence to file an appeal from the judgment passed by Special Judge, CBI, acquitting the accused persons when the case has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI).

       Finding of the Court:

       The State Government (of Bihar) is not competent to direct its public prosecutor to present appeal from the judgment dated December 18, 2006 passed by the Special Judge, CBI (AHD), Patna.