TARKESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 349 of 1994, arising out of Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No. 75 of 1994. By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has refused to add charges under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 .

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of this petitioner, a case vide. Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No. 75 of 1994 was registered on 8.5.1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Sub- stance Act. In the F.I.R., the petitioner alleged that on 8.5.1994 in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. unknown accused persons entered into the house of the petitioner and exploded bomb and three persons of the informant side were assaulted and offence of attempt of Opp. Party No. 2 to murder had also taken place. After registering the case police investigated the same and during the investigation the police found that Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 10 were involved in the occurrence and after obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate, Arrah for prosecuting the accused persons for offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act submitted charge- sheet against Opp. Party Nos. 2 to 10 for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Sub- stance Act. In this case charge-sheet was submitted on 5.9.1994, the date on which sanction was obtained.

(3.) After submission of the charge- sheet on 19.9.1994, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 452, 324, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. After completion of appearance and supply of police papers, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and in the case charges were framed on 1.6.1998. At the time of charge since sanction for prosecution under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was not available on the record, charges could not be framed for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Sub- stances Act. However, charges were framed against all the accused for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, on 31.10.1998 a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution for adding charges under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Sub- stances Act. Subsequent to filing of the petition by the prosecution, this petitioner being the informant on 7.11.1998 also filed similar petition. The defence filed rejoinder to the petition tiled by the prosecution. The rejoinder was filed on 21.11.1998 and thereafter the matter was heard at length by the learned 9th Addl. Sessions Judge, Arrah.