9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 1073 - SC - Indian LawsAppeal u/s 378 - Whether the State Government (of Bihar) has competence to file an appeal from the judgment dated 18th December, 2006 passed by Special Judge, CBI (AHD) acquitting the accused persons when the case has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) - The charges were framed against Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav u/s 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( PC Act ) 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 ₹ 46,26,827/- which he could not satisfactorily account for. Smt. Rabri Devi was charged u/s 109 of IPC 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), 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. 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. On February 17, 2007 the state government, however, filed leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated December 18, 2006 before the High Court of Judicature. HELD THAT - In our opinion, the Legislature has maintained a mutually exclusive division in the matter of appeal from an order of acquittal inasmuch as the 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. As a necessary corollary, it has to be held, and we hold, that 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. For the aforesaid conclusions, the reasons given by the High Court are not correct and the impugned order cannot be sustained. The result appeals are allowed, the order dated September 20, 2007 passed by the High Court is set aside and the Govt. Appeal No. 1 of 2007 State of Bihar v. Lalu Prasad and others presented before the High Court of Judicature at Patna is rejected as not maintainable.
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the State Government to file an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI). 2. Interpretation of the phrases "save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)" and "also" in Section 378. 3. Legislative intent and statutory construction of Section 378 in the context of appeals against acquittals. 4. The role of the Central Government and State Government in filing appeals in cases investigated by central agencies. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competence of the State Government to File an Appeal: The primary issue was whether the State Government of Bihar had the competence to file an appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the Special Judge, CBI (AHD), Patna, when the case was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI). The court concluded that the State Government is not competent to direct its public prosecutor to present an appeal in such cases. This conclusion was based on the interpretation of Section 378(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which delineates that the Central Government has the exclusive authority to direct appeals in cases investigated by the CBI or other central agencies. 2. Interpretation of "Save as Otherwise Provided in Sub-section (2)" and "Also": The court examined the opening words of Section 378(1) - "save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)" - which were intended to exclude the class of cases mentioned in sub-section (2) from the purview of sub-section (1). The word "also" in sub-section (2) was argued to imply that the Central Government could additionally file appeals in such cases. However, the court determined that the word "also" should not be interpreted in a way that nullifies the exception clause in sub-section (1). The court held that the word "also" in sub-section (2) must be treated as immaterial to preserve the legislative intent expressed in the opening words of sub-section (1). 3. Legislative Intent and Statutory Construction: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the plain and clear language of the statute unless it leads to absurdity or inconsistency. The legislative intent behind the changes in the wording from the 1898 Code to the 1973 Code was to limit the State Government's authority in filing appeals in cases investigated by central agencies. The court highlighted that changes in statutory language are presumed to be deliberate and aimed at altering the pre-existing law. The court rejected the argument that the State Government could file an appeal in all cases, including those investigated by the CBI, as this would render the exception clause redundant. 4. Role of Central and State Governments in Filing Appeals: The decision clarified that in cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) or other central agencies, the Central Government alone is competent to direct the public prosecutor to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. The State Government's authority is excluded in such cases to maintain the central agency's control over the investigation and prosecution process. The court's interpretation aimed to preserve the legislative intent and avoid any conflict between the powers of the Central and State Governments. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and rejected the appeal filed by the State Government of Bihar as not maintainable. The court's decision reinforced the exclusive authority of the Central Government to direct appeals in cases investigated by central agencies, thereby upholding the legislative intent and statutory framework of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
|
