P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 147 of 1998 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad had preferred the present criminal Appeal wherein, the Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad by judgment dated 16-04-1999, found A-1 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) and found A-1 not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1b) of the arms Act, 1959 and found A-2 and A-3 not guilty for the offence punishable under section 25 (1b) of the Arms Act, 1959. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 12-11-1997, the Inspector of Police, SIT, hyderabad received credible information that A-1 was in possession of Bombs in his house bearing No. 8-4-370/402 at Rajnagar, borabanda and he belongs to People s War group (PWG ). On that information, the inspector of Police prepared search proceedings and raided the house of A-1 along with his team and panchas and during raid of the above said house, A-1 was found alone in possession of live explosives viz. , 6 country made bombs, 7 gellitine sticks, 3 fuse wire bundles, 15 aluminium detonators, 35 bullets, 2 knives, one air pistol, some prohibited literature of PWG and some silver articles together with some mortgage and other papers. The above items were seized from the possession of A-1 duly effecting his arrest under the cover of a panchanamacum - confessional statement before the mediators, Goremiya and Rakesh. ( 3 ) IT is also the case of the prosecution that at the instance of A-1 and on his confession, the police also raided the house of A-2 and A-3 at Indira Nagar, Jangaiah basti, Borabonda and in the said house, a-2 and A-3 were found alone and A-2 was found in possession of one toy pistol and one knife and A-3 was found in possession of one knife and one toy pistol. The said weapons were seized from their possession after duly effecting their arrest under cover of seizure panchanama-cum-confessional statements of A-2 and A-3 before the same panchas. Hence, the version of the prosecution is that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act aforesaid and Section 25 (1b) of the Arms Act, 1959. The said weapons were seized from their possession after duly effecting their arrest under cover of seizure panchanama-cum-confessional statements of A-2 and A-3 before the same panchas. Hence, the version of the prosecution is that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act aforesaid and Section 25 (1b) of the Arms Act, 1959. ( 4 ) LEARNED Judge recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 6. Exs. P-1 to P-9 and M. Os. 1 to 43 were marked. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned judge recorded acquittal as against A-2 and a-3 and also recorded acquittal as against a-1 for the offence punishable under section 25 (1b) of the Arms Act, 1959, but convicted A-1 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to run both sentences concurrently. Hence the Criminal Appeal. 3. Heard both the counsel. 4. Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant would submit that Ex. P-9, dated 28-02-1998 was filed after filing of the charge-sheet and even otherwise, the Commissioner of Police-cum-Additional district Magistrate, Hyderabad who issued Ex. P-9-sanction order, is not competent to issue the same and hence, the proceedings are vitiated. Learned counsel also had pointed out other legal infirmities and also the evidence available on record and placed strong reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in State of M. P. v. Bhupendra Singh. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, learned Additional public Prosecutor would point out that by virtue of delegation made by the Central government, the District Magistrate is competent to issue the sanction order in question, Ex. P-9 and the District Magistrate would include the Additional District magistrate as well and hence, the commissioner of Police is empowered to issue the sanction order. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed as against a-1 be sustained. The learned Additional public Prosecutor had also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 7 of the act. Further, he also pointed out that the word "central Government" in Section 7 of the Act was substituted by the word "district magistrate" by Act 54 of 2001. But however, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that this amendment is not of retrospective operation. Further, he also pointed out that the word "central Government" in Section 7 of the Act was substituted by the word "district magistrate" by Act 54 of 2001. But however, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that this amendment is not of retrospective operation. ( 6 ) SECTION 7 of the Act deals with restriction of trial of offences as it stood then read, "no Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act, except with the consent of the Central government". It is pertinent to note that the word "central Government" was substituted by the word "district Magistrate" by Act 54 of 2001. There is no serious controversy between the parties that at the relevant point of time by virtue of delegation of powers, the district Magistrate was competent to issue consent order under Section 7 of the Act. It is needless to say that an Additional District magistrate will not be the District Magistrate of Hyderabad and this further delegation is impermissible in law. ( 7 ) IN State of M. P. v. Bhupendra Singh (1 supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the consent of the Central Government held that the Central Government delegating its power to grant consent to District Magistrate. State Government cannot further delegate it to Additional District Magistrate. Moreover, power which has been delegated to the district Magistrate cannot be exercised by additional District Magistrate simply because he is invested with all powers of District magistrate. ( 8 ) IN view of the same, the other question that the sanction order dated 28-02-1998 was filed after filing of the charge-sheet need not detain this Court any longer. Hence, for want of proper consent or sanction, the prosecution cannot succeed and hence, the conviction and the sentence recorded by the learned Judge as against the appellant/a-1 under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are hereby set aside and acquittal is recorded. ( 9 ) THE Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. The bail bonds of A-1 shall stand cancelled.