Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. During investigation of case FIR No. 127 dated 29.7.1999 under Sections 362/324/342 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station, Mallanwala, accused-Charanjit Singh who was in custody at Police Station, Mallanwala was intensively interrogated by SHO Jaspal Singh of PS Mallanwala on the basis of information already available with SSP, Ferozepur. On interrogation by SHO Jaspal Singh in the presence of SI Rachhpal Singh, ASI Jassa Singh, ASI Jagtar Singh etc., he (accused) disclosed that he had kept concealed 5 kgs. of RDX in two packets, two detonators, three bundles of wire, one A.K. 56 Assault Rifle alongwith magazine and 10 live cartridges on a plastic bag in a plastic envelope at a point after digging earth which is at a distance of 3 kilometres from Indo-Pak Boarder on the eastern side of embankment of river Satluj in the elephantina grass and he could get this explosive, fire-arm and ammunition recovered. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered plastic bag containing this explosive, fire-arm, ammunition in a glazed envelope. It was an A.K. 56 Assault Rifle bearing No. 16071882, which was in working condition. A magazine of the rifle alongwith 10 live cartridges kept in another envelope of black colour was also recovered. 3 kgs. and 100 grams RDX was recovered from another parcel. From another parcel contained in the plastic bag 1 kg and 900 grams RDX was recovered. Two detonators fitted with wire as well as three bundles of wire meant for exploding detonators were also recovered out of the plastic bag. The aforesaid explosive, fire-arm, ammunition were made into sealed parcels. These sealed parcels were taken into possession. After investigation, accused was challaned. 2. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur vide order dated 11.4.2000. 3. Accused was charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 4. At the conclusion of the trial, accused was convicted and sentenced as follows :- Under Section 4(b) of the Explosive, Substances Act : RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine further RI for 4 months. Under Section 25 Arms Act : RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 4. At the conclusion of the trial, accused was convicted and sentenced as follows :- Under Section 4(b) of the Explosive, Substances Act : RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine further RI for 4 months. Under Section 25 Arms Act : RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine further RI 2 months. However, both the sentences were run concurrently. 5 Accused has come up in appeal to this Court whereby he has questioned his conviction and sentence by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 15.2.2001. 6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that accused was already in custody in case FIR No. 127 dated 29.7.1999 at Police Station, Mallanwala, when he was subjected to interrogation at Police Station, Mallanwala by SHO Jaspal Singh in the presence of SI Rachhpal Singh etc. It was submitted that there was no ring of truth about this disclosure statement when the same is not corroborated by any one else than SHO Jaspal Singh and others who are Police Officials. It was submitted that there was case under Sections 4/5 of the Explosives Act, 18 of the NDPS Act and 3 of the Official Secret Act pending against the accused at Jalandhar in which he remained in custody of Jalandhar Police from 13.10.1999 to 26.10.1999. It was submitted that there is no evidence on the record to suggest as to when he had kept the explosive, arm and ammunition concealed near the Indo-Pak Boarder. He was in Tihar Jail, Delhi. He was brought to Jalandhar through production warrants. It was submitted that the disclosure statement not supported by any independent witness should not be permitted to satisfy the conscience of the Court so far as its genuineness is concerned. 7. It was submitted that for prosecuting the accused for offence punishable under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, sanction by the District Magistrate is needed under Section 7 of the Act. It was submitted that vide notification No. 33/2/57-Police (iv) Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 4th May, 1957 powers under Section 7 of the Act were entrusted to all State Governments. For the prosecution of the accused under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, State Governments sanction was needed. It was submitted that vide notification No. 33/2/57-Police (iv) Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 4th May, 1957 powers under Section 7 of the Act were entrusted to all State Governments. For the prosecution of the accused under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, State Governments sanction was needed. It was submitted that District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate cannot be said to be "State Government". There was no delegation by the State Government to the District Magistrates for sanctioning prosecutions under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 . It was submitted that as a matter of fact, no such delegation was permissible in favour of the District Magistrates or Additional District Magistrates by the State Government as the State Government was itself a delegatee of the Central Government. 8. In support of this submission, he draw my attention to Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 P&H 246 it was held that according of sanction for prosecution under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act is the function of the Central Government but this function of the Central Government can be delegated to the State Government and if this function is delegated by the Central Government to the State Government, that function becomes the function of the Central Government. It was held that a statutory function of the State Government, becomes the function of the Governor and the business of the State Government under Article 166(3) of the Constitution such statutory business. It is, therefore, competent for the Governor to allocate such statutory function to the Ministers by making rules under Article 166(3). The State Government while according sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act would no doubt be discharging the function of the Central Government and not of the State Government, but the performance of this function would be the business of the State Government, for the convenient transaction of which the Governor can make rules of business under Article 166(3). While making rules under Article 166(3) the Governor is not legislating in respect of the matters included in list-I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and is only regulating the manner in which the business of the State Government is to be performed. 9. While making rules under Article 166(3) the Governor is not legislating in respect of the matters included in list-I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and is only regulating the manner in which the business of the State Government is to be performed. 9. It was submitted that on the sanction accorded by the District Magistrate, Ferozepur, accused could not be prosecuted for offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 . District Magistrate could accord sanction only for prosecuting the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 10. On the mere testimony of SHO Jaspal Singh etc., who are all police officials without any corroboration to them, it is difficult to sustain the order of conviction passed against the accused. It is cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that "graver the offence, stricter the proof". In this case standard of proof adduced falls short of that standard which is necessary to be adduced to sustain such a serious charge. 11. For the reasons given above, this criminal appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Conviction and sentence passed upon the accused- appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Fine if any paid shall be refunded to him. Appeal allowed.