BASUDEO KASERA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing the order dated 3.7.2001 whereby and whereunder the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance of the offence under sections 25(1 -B) and 27 of the Arms Act and under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 111 of 1988 corresponding to G.R. No. 2997 of 1988.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to this application is that one first information report was lodged by the Officer -in -Charge of Ichak Police station stating therein that on 19.11.1988 at about 6 A.M., the informant along with the other police officials proceeded to Village Baryatu to arrest one Meghnath Kasera, an accused in Ichak P.S. Case No. 167 of 1988 and Barhi P.S. Case No. 167 of 1988. When they reached to the house of the accused, accused Meghnath Kashera and his elder brother were trying to flee, away and on chase, they were hiding behind the bush and thereafter Meghnath Kashera started firing from his pistol. The raiding party also fired. It is further alleged that from the possession of Meghnath Kashera, the informant seized pistol, live cartridge and also one live bomb and, accordingly,' first information report was lodged under sections 307, 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1 -8) and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act.

(3.) MR . A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned court below committed error in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner after a lapse of thirteen years as well as the police submitted the sanction order which is not in accordance with law as there would have been a consent of the Central Government for giving sanction in respect of the offences under the Explosive Substance Act, but in the instant case, there is no such consent of the Central Government as required under section 7 of the Explosive Substance Act. It is also submitted that there is a restriction against a proceeding to the trial on any person in respect of the offences under the Explosive Substance Act without consent having been made by an officer not below the rank of a secretary to the Government which is lacking in the instant case and, as such, the court below committed error in taking cognizance which is fit to be quashed.