DEEPAK KHINCHI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a challenge made by the petitioner Deepak Khinchi s/o Madan Lal Khinchi, r/o Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chittorgarh, in Sessions Case No. 53/2006 (22/2006), by which the learned trial court allowed the application submitted by the prosecution under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. and by accepting the same he further ordered to frame charges against accused petitioner for offence under Sec. 3 ,4 ,5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1908'). The brief facts of the case are that a charge sheet against the present petitioner was filed by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Chittorgarh on 03.07.2006 for offences under Sec. 285 ,286 ,323 ,324 , 304 IPC and Sec. 3 ,4 ,5, and 6 of the Act of 1908, in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, who committed the case to the court of Sessions, from where it was transferred to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Chittorgarh.

(2.) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Chittorgarh, vide order dated 13.09.2007 discharged the petitioner from offences under Sec. 3,4,5 and 6 of the Act of 1908 for want of requisite consent of the Central Government, which is mandatory as per the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act of 1908. An application was submitted by the prosecution on 03.04.2008, along with the sanction letter issued on 01.04.2008 by the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh for proceeding under the provisions of the Act of 1908 and the learned trial court rejected that application also on 15.05.2010 on the ground that the sanction to prosecute has not been granted in accordance with the provisions, as contemplated under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1908. The prosecution again submitted the sanction dated 01.06.10 issued by the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh issuing consent to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 3 ,4 ,5, and 6 of the Act of 1908 along with an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the learned trial court by the impugned order.

(3.) Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 16.11.2010.