RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 16-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 5 S.C.R. 283 
RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2007 
MARCH 16, 2015 
[T. S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND 
B 
R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
C 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
ss.156(3) and 202(1) - Investigation under- Scope 
of - Complaint before Magistrate alleging forgery and D 
seeking investigation u!s. 156(3) - The Magistrate instead 
directed the police to give report u/s. 202(1) - High Court 
declined to interfere with the order- Held: The parameters 
for exercise of power under both the provisions are different 
- Direction under 156(3) can be issued where an account of E 
credibility of information is available, or weighing the interest 
of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct 
investigation - The nature of cases dealt with u/s. 202 are 
those where material available are not clear to proceed further 
- The present case was primarily of civil nature - On the F 
allegation of forgery, Magistrate did not find clear material to 
proceed against the accused - Therefore, the Magistrate 
rightly passed direction u/s. 202 as in the facts of the case, 
direction u/s. 156(3) was not warranted. 
s. 202 (3) - Power of police to arrest - During 
'investigation under - Held: Section 202 (3) does not give 
power to the police to arrest- Merely negating the power of 
arrest to person other than police, does not mean that police 
283 
G 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A could exercise such power. 
B 
Maxims - 'Expressio unius est exclusion alterious' 
(express mention of one thing excludes others)-Applicability 
of. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The direction uls. 156(3) Cr.P.C is to be 
issued, only after application of mind by the Magistrate. 
C When the Magistrate does not take cognizance and does 
not find it necessary to postpone instance of process 
and finds a case made out to proceed forthwith, direction 
under the said provision is issued. Cases where 
Magistrate takes cognizance and postpones issuance 
D of process are cases where the Magistrate has yet to 
determine "existence of sufficient ground to proceed". 
Category of cases i.e. Matrimonial disputes/family 
disputes, Commercial offences, Medical negligence 
cases, Corruption cases, Cases where there is abnormal 
E delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for 
example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter 
without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay, 
may fall under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Subject to these brc.:.ld 
guidelines available from the scheme of Cr.P.C, exercise 
F of discretion by the Magistrate is guided by interest of 
justice from case to case. [Para 22] [306-B-D] 
1.2. Section 156(3) and Section 202(1) are in two 
different chapters of Cr.P.C. though common expression 
G 'investigation' is used in both the provisions. Normal rule 
is to understand the same expression in two provisions 
of an enactment in same sense unless the context 
otherwise requires. Heading of Chapter XII is 
"Information to the Police and their Powers to 
H 
RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS. PRIVATE LTD. v. STJ.\TE ·285 
OF GUJARAT 
Investigate" and that of Chapter XV is "Complaints to A 
Magistrate". Chapter XV deals exclusively with 
complaints to Magistrates. [Para 14) [296-D] 
1.3 While prompt registration of FIR is mandatory, 
checks arid balances on power of police are equally B 
important. Power of arrest or of investigation is not 
mechanical. It requires application of mind in the manner 
provided. Existence of power and its exercise are 
different Delicate balance had to be maintained between 
the interest of society and liberty of an individual. C 
Commercial offences have been put in the category of 
cases where FIR may not be warranted without enquiry. 
[Para 19) [304-D-E] 
1.4 Power uls. 202 Cr.P.C. is of different nature. D 
Report sought under the said provision has limited 
purpose of deciding "whether or not there is sufficient 
ground for proceeding". If this be the object, the 
procedure uls. 157 or Section 173 is not intended to be 
followed. [Para 21) [305-E-F] 
E 
Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1; Anil 
Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705: 2013 (9) 
SCR 869; Devrapal/i Lakshminaryanan Reddy & Ors. 
Vs. Narayana Reddy & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 252: 1976 
(0) Suppl. SCR 524; National Bank of Oman vs. 
Barakara Abdul Aziz & Anr., (2013) 2 SCC 488: 2012 
(11) SCR 500; Madhao&Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 
& Anr., (201
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.