LALU PRASAD YADAV versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 01-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 334 
LALU PRASAD YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 662 of 2010) 
APRIL 1, 2010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.M. LODHA AND DR. 8.5. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378(1) and (2) -
C Appeal against acquittal - Right of State Government to file 
-· In a case where offence was investigated by Delhi Special 
Police Establishment (CBI) - Held: State Government is not 
the competent authority to file an appeal against acquittal in 
such cases -
The opening words of s. 378(1) "save as 
o otherwise provided in sub-section (2)" are intended to exclude 
the class of cases, mentioned in sub-section (2) out of the 
operation of the body of Sub-section (1) - Delhi Special Police 
Establishment Act, 1946 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 
- s. 417. 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Changes in wordings and phrasing of statutory provision 
- Held: Such changes may be presumed to have been 
deliberate and with purpose to limit, qualify or enlarge the pre-
f 
existing law, as the changes of the words employ - Any 
construction which makes the ext!eption clause, with which the 
Section opens, unnecessary and redundant, should be 
avoided. 
G 
Construction of statute - Language of a statute should 
be read as it is - Any construction resulting in rejection of 
words has to be avoided - However, such rule of construction 
is not without exception. 
H 
334 
LALU PRASAD YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 335 
Precedent - The essence in a decision is its ratio and A 
not every observation found therein - The observations in a 
judgment do no operate as a binding precedent. 
Words and Phrases: 'Save' - Meaning of, in the context 
of s. 378(1) Cr.P.C. 
The question for consideration in the present 
appeals was whether the State Government has 
competence to file an appeal from the judgment passed 
B 
by Special Judge, CBI (AHO) acquitting the accused 
persons as the c~se has been investigated by the Delhi C 
Special Police Establishment (CBI). 
Appellant-accused and CBI contended that the cases 
are covered u/s. 378(2) Cr.P.C. and are excluded from the 
purview of s. 378(1) by virtue of the opening clause in 0 
sub-section (1) "Save as otherwise provided in sub-
section (2)". 
Respondent-State Government contended that use 
of expressions "in any case" in sub-section (1) and "also" 
in sub-section (2) indicates that legislature intended that E 
general rule would be that State Government may file an 
appeal in any and every case and Central Government 
may additionally fil~ an appeal in a case covered by sub-
section (2); and that ss. 377 and 378 Cr.P.C. are in pari, 
materia and interpretation given to s. 377 in Eknath 
F 
Shankarrao Mukkawar case, needs to be accorded to s. 
378. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Legislature has maintained a mutually G 
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 
H 
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A and the authority of the State Government in relation to 
such cases has been excluded. As a necessary corollary, 
it has to be held, that the State Government is not 
competent to direct its public prosecutor to present 
appeal from the judgment passed by the Special Judge, 
B CBI (AHO), Patna. [Para 40] [369-0-E] 
1.2. The opening words of Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. -
"Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)" - are in 
the nature of exception intended to exclude the class of 
C cases mentioned i~ sub-section (2) out of operation ~f the 
body of sub-section (1 ). 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), namely, (i) the cases in 
which offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special 
D Police ·Establishment constituted under Delhi Special 
Police Establishment Act, 1946 and (ii) the cases in which 
the offence has been investigated by any other agency 
empowered to make investigation into an offence under 
any Central Act other than Cr.P.C. [Para 27] [355-G-H] 
E 
1.3. 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 
F to the exception (clause) articulate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.