STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. PARASRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This revision preferred by the State under Sec. 401/397 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dtd. 14/10/2011 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 140/2011 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the respondent from the offence charged under Ss. 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Substances Act').

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 17/6/2011, upon a tip off by the informer, the Investigating Officer raided the crusher plant, namely, Bhagyashree Crusher Stone, Khaira and during raid, the Investigating Officer found the respondent carrying a bag containing Detonators, Fuse Wires, Ammonium Nitrate and Kerosene. During investigation, it revealed that the alleged substances were provided for causing explosion in stone. Thereafter, the respondent was served with a notice under Sec. 91 of the Cr.P.C. to produce lawful authority for possessing illegal substances, however, he did not submit any lawful authority nor did submit any license with respect to explosive substances. The respondent was arrested and an F.I.R. under the Crime No.272/2011 was registered and after obtaining due sanction under Sec. 7 of the Substances Act, charge sheet was filed against him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge and after appreciation of material documents, the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the respondent of the aforesaid charges. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/State submits that sanction to prosecute the respondent issued vide order dtd. 5/8/2011 by the Additional District Magistrate is in accordance with law and the Additional District Magistrate is competent to issue such order. He next contends that sanction/consent granted by the Additional District Magistrate is valid as he exercised powers of District Magistrate under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge discharge the respondent herein after observing that there is lacuna in the said order as the same was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, who is not competent, is not sustainable in law.