LAWS(APH)-1986-6-16

BOLLAVARAM BALI REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On June 01, 1986
BOLLAVARAM BALI REDDY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for quashing the order dated 23-9-1985 passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Jammalamadugu taking the case on file against the accused as P R C 21 of 1985 by including Sections 148, 307, 302, I P C read with section 149 I P C and Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

(2.) The averments in support of the petition may be briefly stated: The Sub-Inspector of Police Peddamudiam Police Station filed charge sheet against the petitioners under Sections 147, 341-323 and Section 426 read with Section 149 I P C. The allegations in the chargesheet are that on 27-12-84 at about 8 a. m. the accused and 20 unknown persons wrongfully restrained the lorry and caused damage to the lorry by hurling stones and it is also stated that as a result of hurling stones P Ws. 1 and 2 received simple injuries. On receipt of the Chargesheet the Magistrate after perusing F I R., inquest report and post mortem report took the case on file under sections 147, 321, 323,307 and 302 IPC read with sec. 149 IPC and also under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act as one of the persons died on account of injuries due to bomb explosion. In the F I R., and inquest there was an allegation that the accused hurled bombs against the persons as a result of which one person died. There is absolutely no allegation or reference to the death of the person in the charge-sheet. The police after investigation found that the allegations of hurling bombs against the deceased person were not true and filed chargesheet for minor offences. It is further stated that the Magistrate has no jurisdi ction to include certain facts which are not mentioned in the charge sheet and take the case on file for major offences and further he cannot take cognizance of the offences under sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act in the absence of sanction from the Central Government

(3.) The learned counsel raised two fold contention namely that in the chargesheet there is no reference to the death of person and the Magistrate cannot travel beyond the charge-sheet and no sanction is obtained for charging the accused for the offences under sections 3 and 5 of the E S Act.