CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 21 of 2000 PETITIONER: STATE OF M.P. RESPONDENT: BHUPENDRA SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/01/2000 BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA & SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2000 (1) SCR 104
The Order of the Court is as follows :-
Leave granted.
2.The respondent was apprehended on 17th February, 1977 and it is the case
of the appellant that detonators were found in his possession. A charge
sheet was filed against him under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (“the said Act”). Cognizance was taken and
the trial proceeded to some extent. The respondent then filed a revision
petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh contending that the
consent of the Central Government which was requisite under Section 7 of
the said Act had not been properly obtained. The High Court accepted the
respondent’s contention and quashed the proceedings against him. The State
of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal.
3.For a prosecution under the said Act, the consent of the Central
Government is requisite by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 thereof.
By notification dated 2nd December, 1978 the Central Government entrusted
to District Magistrates, inter alia, in the State of Madhya Pradesh its
functions under Section 7 of the said Act.
4.The consent for the prosecution of the respondent was granted by the
Additional District Magistrate of the district concerned and, in this
behalf, reliance was placed, on behalf of the appellant, upon a
notification dated 24th April, 1995 issued by the appellant whereunder it
appointed the Joint Collector and Executive Magistrate as Additional
District Magistrate for the District of Gwalior and directed that he should
“exercise powers of District Magistrate conferred under the said Code (
Criminal Procedure Code ) or under any other law for the time being in
force.”
The submission on behalf of the appellant is that, by reason of the latter
notification, the power under Section 7 of the said Act delegated by the
Central Government to the District Magistrate had now been delegated to the
Additional District Magistrate and that, accordingly, the consent that he
granted for the prosecution of the respondent was valid.
5.It is difficult to accept the submission. The power of granting consent
under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Central Government. The
Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, in
our view, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the
Additional District Magistrate a power of the Central Government which the
Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate.
6.The decision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala
Engineering Co. Ltd. 1969 AIR(SC) 483 ] is also of some relevance. This
Court said that where, by virtue of a notification under Section 20 of the
Defence of India Act, the Central Government had delegated its powers under
Section 29 to a District Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate was
not competent to requisition property under Section 29 simply because he
had been invested with all powers of a District Magistrate under Section
10(2).
7.The appeal fails and is dismissed.