D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the impugned order dated 27.9.2005, whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and further quashment of the entire criminal proceeding of the petitioners in S.T. No. 469 of 2005 arising out of Bishnugarh P.S. case No. 56 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 2500 of 2005 now pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. VI Hazaribagh.
(2.) THE prosecution story lies in a narrow compass. The informant, Officer In -charge of Bishnugarh Police station, presented a written statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh narrating therein that pursuant to the telephonic massage received from the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh on 29.7.2005 that the M.C.C. extremists were to observe the 'Martyr Week' and in this connection it was informed that they might attack on the police party, he along with the police force of CRPF, 72 -G Company proceeded towards the village of Taleshwar Mahto and conducted search of several houses including the house of the petitioner, Taleshwar Mahto from where huge quantity of incriminating articles including prohibited literatures were recovered. In course of search and seizure Taleshwar Mahto was arrested and he disclosed that the seized articles were brought and dumped by the Area Commander of M.C.C. Raju Mahto. He further confessed that some of the incriminating articles were kept with his brother and father at village Semarbera. Upon such discloser the house of his father Prasadi Mahto (Petitioner No. 1) and brother Dular Chand Mahto was searched at village Semarbera on the same day and huge quantity of explosives including 12 Gelatine, branded as explosive 25 M * 125 G, Indian Explosive Limited Gomia 829112 Power GEL 801 were recovered and seizure list was prepared in presence of independent witnesses. The case was instituted under Section 144 of the IPC, Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act as well as under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act against all the three accused persons including the petitioners. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the petitioners along with Dular Chand Mahto were put on Trial after framing of charge under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act as also under Section 144 of Indian Penal Code. Two seizure witnesses were produced in course of trial but were unfavourable to the prosecution.
(3.) ADVANCING his arguments Mr. Roy submitted that the trial of the petitioners for the charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act is not sustainable for want of sanction by the competent authority as defined under Section 7 of the Act, 1908. Even taking cognizance of the alleged offence by the C.J.M. is misuse of the process of court and accordingly, the Additional Sessions Judge (trial court) has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial against the petitioners.;