RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No.36 of 2006 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A1 for the offence punishable under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 (for short, "the Act").

(2.) Facts, which give rise to filing of this petition, are that the petitioner is one of the directors of a Granite leasing company viz., M/s.Gallop Granites Private Limited. The said company was granted lease in the year 1997 in respect of the land to an extent of 15 hectares in survey No.1 of Addukonda Village, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam District, for the purpose of mining operations. When the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Enforcement, and his staff visited M/s.Gallop Granites Ltd., Melisathiwadsa on 17.11.2000, he found no records at the site except one person K.V.Ramaiah and that A2 was coming with a plastic bag containing explosive substance and on their questioning, A2 and K.V.Ramaiah informed that no licence was obtained under the Act and hence the said two persons were arrested and a plastic bag containing explosive substance has been seized. Thereby, the Inspector of Police, vigilance and Enforcement lodged a complaint.

(3.) On the basis of the above complaint a case in crime No.139 of 2000 was registered against one K.V.Ramaiah and Gopinath Das/A2 for the offence under Section 5 of the Act. After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed on 31.10.2001 against the petitioner herein and A2. The Magistrate, who took cognizance of the case in C.C.No.5 of 2002, framed charges on 28.06.2002 and examined P.Ws.1 to 6. After examining the witnesses and when the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate entertained a doubt as to whether the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class or by the Sessions Court. After obtaining clarification in that regard, he re- registered the case as P.R.C.No.2 of 2006 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. on 12.04.2006 and the matter was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sompeta. On such committal, the Sessions Judge framed necessary charges on 11.10.2007 in Sessions Case No.36 of 2006. To quash the same, the present petition has been filed. Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire allegations shows that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 5 r/w Section 6 of the Act, which are not sufficient to prosecute the accused, but under Section 7 of the Act, no Court shall proceed to trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government. The Central Government has been substituted with the District Magistrate with effect from 01.02.2002, whereas the offence took place in the year 2001 and the trial was also commenced in October, 2001. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of the illustration 6 enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal's1 Case. He further contends that when necessary charge has been framed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, who conducted trial by examining P.Ws.1 to 6 and when it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, he has to proceed from that place, but cannot frame charges afresh and conduct the trial afresh into the matter.