Judgment R.N.Sahay and P.K.Sarkar JJ. 1. There are five appellants in this appeal, who have been convicted and sentenced by he 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda by his judgment and order dated 9.5.1995 in Sessions Case No. 159/34 of 1993/1 of 1995. Appellant No. 1 has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years. Further he has been sentenced to under go RI for life under Section 307 IPC. He has also been sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and five years RI under Section 5 of said Act. The remaining four appellants, i.e. appellant Nos. 2 to 5 have been separately sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 148 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard Mr. Mukul Prasad, learned Counsel appearing in support of this appeal and Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP for the State. 3. So far as he conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act is concerned, the same is non-est for the reason that no proper sanction for prosecution of this appellant was accorded, as required by Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. In this case consent for his prosecution was given by the District Magistrate of Godda, who is not competent to grant sanction. It is clear from Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 that consent for prosecution is to be granted by the Central Government or by the State Government by virtue of the powers delegated by this Act. This question was considered by the Punjab High Court in AIR 1971 Punjab 246 and 1982 Cr LJ 2020. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jagat Narayan Upadhyay V/s. State of Bihar, 1993 (1) PLJR 235: 1993 (1) BLJ 473 , has also taken the same view. The conviction of this appellant No. 1 under the Explosive Substances Act is, therefore, non-est and without jurisdiction and the same is accordingly, quashed. 4. The next question for consideration is as to whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is supported by evidence. The evidence led by the prosecution may be summarised thus. The conviction of this appellant No. 1 under the Explosive Substances Act is, therefore, non-est and without jurisdiction and the same is accordingly, quashed. 4. The next question for consideration is as to whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is supported by evidence. The evidence led by the prosecution may be summarised thus. Indra Prasad Sah, the informant in this case had taken some land on Bhugutbandha from Nazir Mian, son of Aziz Mian of village Dudhia Pahar within the jurisdiction of Godda Mufassil Police Station. On 24-2-1988 the informant had gone to plough the land and was ploughing the land at about 9 a.m. On the date of the occurrence four years of Bhugutbandha had been completed out of six years. While the informant was ploughing his land the appellants came there armed with bomb, guns etc. at about 10 a.m. Appellants Jogi Mian was armed with Bhujali, Shobrati Mian was armed with bomb, sword and Bhujali and Ulfat Mian was armed with garasa and both Nasim Ansari and Hafiz Ansari were carrying bags, containing bombs, Appellant Shobrati Mian hurled a bomb hitting the informant, due to which the informant, received injuries on his nose and face. There is, however, no evidence with regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the informant, as the injury report was not exhibited nor the doctor was examined, When alarm was raised by the cow-boys, who were there with their catties, several persons rushed to the place of occurrence. Appellant Nasim Mian came there running and hurled a bomb and also asked others to hurl bomb. When the father of the informant came there he was also attacked by bomb hurled by Hafiz Ansari, but that bomb, however, did not explode. Thereafter the appellants fled away towards their home. The villagers assembled and encircled their houses. The bomb and Garasa which were left at the place of occurrence, were handed over to the police. 5. Appellant No. 1 Shobrati Mian was charged under Sections 307 and 324 IPC and 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Other appellants were charged under Sections 148, 307/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and went to the land of the informant to commit mischief. Other appellants were charged under Sections 148, 307/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and went to the land of the informant to commit mischief. They also hurled bomb, but since no valid sanction for prosecution of the appellant Shobrati Mian was obtained as such his conviction under Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act cannot be sustained. The question is whether Section 307 IPC is applicable in the facts of the case when the informant had received some minor injury. There is no evidence to show that the accused persons intended to cause death of the informant, his brother or his father. If this appellant (Shobrati Mian) had such intention to cause death the informant would have received serious injuries. It is evident from the evidence that the informant suffered minor injury by the bomb hurled by appellant Shobrati Mian and as such he is guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC. Other appellants have not caused any injury and as such they are guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC. 6. We, therefore, hold that the conviction of appellant No. 1 under Section 307 IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the conviction of rest of the appellants under Section 307/149 must be set aside. The conviction of the appellants under Section 148 IPC passed by the lower Court, is hereby upheld and all appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the above modification in sentence. Appellants Nos. 1, 3 and 4, namely, Shobrati Mian, Ulfat Mian and Nasim Mian are in custody since 2 1/2 years. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Other two appellants, i.e. appellant Nos. 2 and 5, namely, Jogi Mian and Hafiz Ansari have remained in custody for three months and they are on bail and as such they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.