SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is stated in this present petition by the petitioner that on 5. 5. 1999 when the van of respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand Jhanwar carrying explosive substance in a huge quantity being unloaded in `nohra' of respondent No. 2, at that time due to explosion two persons, Bheru and Sattar Khan received serious injuries. Out of them Bheru later on succumbed to the injuries. The information about this incident was received by Shahpura, Police Station and on receiving the said information, ASI Aziz Mohd. reached the place of incident and lodged FIR No. 107/99 with Shahpura Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and also under Sections 286, 337, 338 IPC. However, SHO Madan Dan Singh investigated the case and filed challan under Section 9-B of the Explosive Act, 1884 against respondents No. 2 and 3 accused and also for the offence under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304-A I. P. C. Accordingly, the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) THE present petitioner, who claims to be a public spirited man of that area, first approached this court by way of a public interest litigation petition No. 2839/99 as he apprehended that SHO Madandan Singh, who was investigating the case only with a view to favour the respondent No. 2 may file case against them for the offence under Section 9-B of the Explosive Act, 1884 which is a bailable offence and not under Section 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, for which life imprisonment is provided under Section 3 of the said Act. After issuing notice in that petition and hearing all the learned counsel for the parties the Division Bench of this court headed by Hon'ble Chief Justice disposed of the said writ petition on 8. 03. 2001 with certain observations. During the pendency of that writ petition, the present petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and challenged the impugned order dated 7. 1. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura of District Bhilwara in Criminal Original Case No. 219/99 rejecting his application for taking cognizance against both the respondents No. 2 and 3 accused for the offences under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

(3.) BEFORE parting I must state that the attitude of learned APP before the trial Court at the time of hearing of the application submitted by the petitioner was not at all good and it is required to be condemned in strongest words. It is true that present petitioner has directly submitted the application before the learned trial Judge, but that is no ground for the learned APP to leave the field and ran away like this in such a sensitive matter. He could have very much taken the objection which has been taken here in this petition by the learned Public Prosecutor about his locus standi. The public prosecutors are there to assist the court and not to take such a stand that he was not given copy of the application, therefore, he would not address the court. The public prosecutors are there to assist the court for the administration of proper and better justice.