SAXENA, J. - (1.) THESE revision petitions are being disposed-off by a common order because a common point of law is involved therein.
(2.) THESE revision petitions have been preferred against the orders dated 3. 7. 92 and 29. 7. 92 passed by the learned Addl. Sesions Judge, Beawar in Sessions Case No. 41/90 "state vs. Harish Chandra and Sessions case No. 21/92 State vs. Devi and Others respectively whereby allowing the application filed on behalf of accused non-petitioner (s), the learned Addl. Sessions Judge discharged the accused non-petitioner (s) of the offence under Sec. 5 (1) (9) (b), Explosive Act, 1884 and under Section 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and dropped the trials against them for want of valid sanction for prosecution under Sec. 7 of the Act. Now briefly the facts. In Harish Chandra's case, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Raj. , Jaipur submitted the challan against the accused for the offence u/sec. 5 (1) (9) (b), Explosive Act and under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act in the court of learned Addl. C. J. M,. Beawar, who in his turn committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned trial Judge framed the charge against accused Harish Chandra to which he pleaded not guilty. However, the non-petitioner moved an application under Sec. 7 of the Act, which was allowed and proceedings were dropped against him. In Devi & Others's case, the S. H. O. , P. S. , Beawar City after investigation submitted a challan against non- petitioners Devi, Abdul Aziz, Chetan Mal and Ranjit Mal in the court of learned A. C. J. M. , Beawar. However, alongwith the challan, no prosecution sanction was filed. The A. C. J. M. committed the case to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar. On 29. 7. 92, the prosecution submitted the prosecution sanction u/s. 7 of the Act dated 28. 2. 92 ordered by the District Magistrate, Ajmer before the learned trial Judge along with a copy of the notification dated 20. 04. 1977 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India published in Gazette of India Part II-Sec. 3 at page 1583. The accused non-petitioner filed an application prayed for dropping the proceedings against them for want of valid sanction for prosecution u/s. 7 of the Act. The learned trial Judge by his impugned order relying on this court's order dt. 4. 5. 92 passed in S. B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1246/91 State vs. Amar Chand held that since the consent of the State Govt. for prosecution of the accused non-petitioner was not taken, there was no valid sanction and, as such, keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act discharged the accused non- petitioners and dropped the criminal trial against them. Hence these revision petitions. In Harish Chandra's case, none appears on behalf of the accused non-petitioners despite sufficient service. I have heard Shri K. A, Khan, Public Prosecutor and Mr. Rajesh Kapoor and Mr. N. K. Singhal learned counsel for the accused non-petitioners Devi and Others at length and carefully perused the record of the lower court. The learned Public Prosecutor has vigorously canvassted that the learned trial Judge has committed gross error of law in holding that there was no valid sanction of the Central Govt. for prosecuting the accused non-petitioners for the aforementioned offences. He has asserted that in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution, in supersession of previous notifications issued in this behalf, the President with the consent of the Govt. of Rajasthan and Others States vide notification S. O. No. 359 dated 20. 04. 1977 has entrusted to all District Magistrates in the said States including Rajasthan the functions of the Central Govt. u/s. 7 of the Act. He, therefore, submits that in both these cases, the Distt. Magistrate, Ajmer has issued sanction for prosecution of the accused non-petitioners. He further submits that the learned trial Judge has wrongly interpreted the law laid down in Amar Chand's case (supra) by this court and that the facts of Amar Chand's case are poles apart with the facts of the cases on hand. According to him, the impugned orders are, therefore, apparently illegal and against the record, which deserve to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Rajesh Kapur and N. K. Singhal learned counsel appearing for accused non-petitioners Devi and Others have vehemently contended that the police after investigation did not submit the prosecution sanction alongwith the challan papers and, as such, the copy of the sanction was not given to the accused non-petitioners. Thus, there was a clear violation of the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P. C. As regards the validity of prosecution sanction after perusing the notification dt. 20. 04. 1977 which is published in the Gazette of Govt. of India, they could not put an substantial argument to show that the said sanctions lacky competence or are invalid. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. In Amar Chand's case (supra), the accused had filed petition u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. against the order dated 18. 6. 1991 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Beawar for framing the charge for the offence under Section 5 (1) (9) (b), Explosive Act and under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act on the ground that from the contents of the FIR as also the challan papers, no such offence was made out because the accused petitioner was carrying the explosive substance in accordance with the terms of the licence issued in his favour. This court deciding the said petition also observed that it was not necessary to go into the merits of the case and to find out as to whether any such offence was made out or not because there was no consent of the Central Govt. for prosecuting him under Sec. 7 of the Act and in sucn circumstances, the trial against the petitioner could not proceed and, accordingly, the proceedings before the trial Court were quashed. Therefore, it is abundantly apparent that in Amar Chand's case (supra), the validity of prosecution sanction was not examined. On the other hand, in the case on hand, the validity of the prosecution sanction which was issued by the Collector, Ajmer was challenged on the ground that no consent of the Central Govt. was given and, as such, those sanctions were incompetent. It appears that the learned trial Judge has not correctly interpreted the law laid down in Amar Chand's case (supra) and has wrongly held that the facts of the cases on hand were also governed by the dictum given in Amar Chand's case (supra ). It is true that in Devi & Other's case, the Investigating Officer did not submit the prosecution sanction alongwith the challan papers. However, the prosecution sanction dt. 28. 2. 92 was submitted before the learned trial Judge on 28. 7. 92 i. e. the date on which the case committed and on the same day the accused had filed an application alleging that since no prosecution sanction was accorded with the consent of the Central Govt. , he should be discharged. Since the prosecution sanction did not form part of the challan papers which were submitted before the learned Magistrate, there was no question of giving the copy of the prosecution sanction to them at that stage. Further before the learned trial Judge, the said prosecution sanction alongwith the Ministry of Home Affairs notification was filed and the said sanction was challenged on behalf of the accused petitioner (s ). Therefore, I do not find any substantial violation of provisions of Sec. 207 Cr. P. C. nor any, prejudice has been caused to the accused non-petitioner (s ). Section 7 of the Act places restriction on the trial of offences. It proclaims that no court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 except with the consent of the Central Govt. No such provision exists in the Explosive Act, 1884 and for the trial of any person under the said Act, no prosecution sanction is necessary. In the cases on hand, the challans were filed against the accused non-petitioner (s) for the offences u/ss. 5 (l) (9) (b) of the Explosive Act, 1884 also. Therefore, in respect of the said offence, there was no occasion for the learned trial Judge to have dropped the proceadings. ;