Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the State. 2. The short question which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is as to whether the trial of the petitioner for an offence under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act is sustainable in law for want of sanction by the appropriate authority as defined under Section 7 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the trial as against the petitioner has proceeded merely on the basis of sanction accorded by the District Magistrate, Sahebganj and there is no sanction accorded by the Central Government as per Section 7 of the Act. 4. It appears that at time of framing charge, this question was raised before the trial court and the trial court refused the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that no sanction has been accorded by the Central Government' as required by Section 7 of the Act for prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Section 3/5 of the Act. From perusal of Annexure-1 it is manifestly clear that the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence under the Explosive Substance Act has been sanctioned by the District Magistrate, Sahebganj. 5. Section 7 of the Act contemplates that no court can proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no sanction duly granted by the Central Government for the trial of the petitioner and only on the basis of sanction accorded by the District Magistrate, trial has proceeded. From the materials on record ex facie, it appears that there is want of sanction in terms of Section 7 of the Act and the trial of the petitioner, in my opinion, therefore, is not sustainable in law. 7. For the reason aforementioned, therefore, I allow this application and quash the order impugned dated 6.3.1993 passed by the learned trial court. Charges framed against the petitioner are also quashed for want of sanction in terms of Section 7 of the Act.