State of M.P. Vs. Bhupendra Singh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. R.No. 199 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. R.No. 199 of 1997)
Petitioner: State of M.P.
Respondent: Bhupendra Singh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. R.No. 199 of 1997)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. R.No. 199 of 1997)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA & S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 07, 2000
Appearances:
Mr. K.N. Shukla, Senior Advocate, Mr. Prakash Jha, Mr. Randhir Jain, Mr. Uma Nath Singh, Advocates with him for the appellant
Mr. Dr. T.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, Mr. B.C. Baruah, Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Advocates with him for the Respondent
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Section 7 – Consent of Central Govt. – Validity – By notification dated 2.12.78, Central Govt. entrusting its function under Sec-tion 7, to District Magistrate – Consent in fact granted by Additional District Magistrate – Notification dated 24.4.95, appointing Joint Collector and Executive Magistrate as Additional District Magistrate for exercising powers of District Magistrate under Cr.P.C. and any other law, in force. Held that consent for prosecution granted by Additional District Magistrate was not valid.
Held:
The power of granting consent under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Central Government. The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the Additional Dis-trict Magistrate a power of the Central Government which the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate.(Para 5)
Cases Reffered:
1. Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. (AIR 1969 SC 483)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent was apprehended on 17th February, 1977 and it is the case of the appellant that detonators were found in his possession. A charge sheet was filed against him under the provi-sions of Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (“the said Act”). Cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded to some extent. The respondent then filed a revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh contending that the consent of the Central Government which was requisite under Section 7 of the said Act had not been properly obtained. The High Court accepted the respondent’s contention and quashed the proceedings against him. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal.
3. For a prosecution under the said Act, the consent of the Central Government is requisite by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 thereof. By notification dated 2nd December, 1978 the Central Government entrusted to District Magistrates, inter alia, in the State of Madhya Pradesh its functions under Section 7 of the said Act,.
4. The consent for the prosecution of the respondent was granted by the Additional District Magistrate of the district concerned and, in this behalf, reliance was placed, on behalf of the ap-pellant, upon a notification dated 24th April, 1995 issued by the appellant whereunder it appointed the Joint Collector and Execu-tive Magistrate as Additional District Magistrate for the Dis-trict of Gwalior and directed that he should “exercise powers of District Magistrate conferred under the said Code (Criminal Procedure Code) or under any other law for the time being in force.” The submission on behalf of the appellant is that, by reason of the latter notification, the power under Section 7 of the said Act delegated by the Central Government to the District Magistrate had now been delegated to the Additional District Magistrate and that, accordingly, the consent that the granted for the prosecution of the respondent was valid.
5. It is difficult to accept the submission. The power of grant-ing consent under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Cen-tral Government. The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, in our view, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the Additional District Magistrate a power of the Central Government which the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate.
6. The decision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd.(AIR 1969 SC 483) is also of some relevance. This Court said that where, by virtue of a notifica-tion under Section 20 of the Defence of India Act, the Central Government had delegated its powers under Section 29 to a Dis-trict Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate was not competent to requisition property under Section 29 simply because he had been invested with all powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2).
7. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent was apprehended on 17th February, 1977 and it is the case of the appellant that detonators were found in his possession. A charge sheet was filed against him under the provi-sions of Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (“the said Act”). Cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded to some extent. The respondent then filed a revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh contending that the consent of the Central Government which was requisite under Section 7 of the said Act had not been properly obtained. The High Court accepted the respondent’s contention and quashed the proceedings against him. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal.
3. For a prosecution under the said Act, the consent of the Central Government is requisite by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 thereof. By notification dated 2nd December, 1978 the Central Government entrusted to District Magistrates, inter alia, in the State of Madhya Pradesh its functions under Section 7 of the said Act,.
4. The consent for the prosecution of the respondent was granted by the Additional District Magistrate of the district concerned and, in this behalf, reliance was placed, on behalf of the ap-pellant, upon a notification dated 24th April, 1995 issued by the appellant whereunder it appointed the Joint Collector and Execu-tive Magistrate as Additional District Magistrate for the Dis-trict of Gwalior and directed that he should “exercise powers of District Magistrate conferred under the said Code (Criminal Procedure Code) or under any other law for the time being in force.” The submission on behalf of the appellant is that, by reason of the latter notification, the power under Section 7 of the said Act delegated by the Central Government to the District Magistrate had now been delegated to the Additional District Magistrate and that, accordingly, the consent that the granted for the prosecution of the respondent was valid.
5. It is difficult to accept the submission. The power of grant-ing consent under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Cen-tral Government. The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, in our view, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the Additional District Magistrate a power of the Central Government which the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate.
6. The decision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd.(AIR 1969 SC 483) is also of some relevance. This Court said that where, by virtue of a notifica-tion under Section 20 of the Defence of India Act, the Central Government had delegated its powers under Section 29 to a Dis-trict Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate was not competent to requisition property under Section 29 simply because he had been invested with all powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2).
7. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
