Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1078 (PAT)

Ram Chandra Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-16

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.P. Jaswal, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present revision application has been preferred against an order dated 22.10.2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in S.Tr. No. 441/ 2002. By the aforesaid order the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application of the defence to stay the trial till appropriate sanction Is taken from the District Magistrate, as contemplated under Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 3. The petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 341, 342 and 307/34 IPC read with Sec.3/4 of Explosive Substance Act for having exploded two bombs while fleeing. Once the trial commenced, an application was filed on behalf of the defence that as the petitioner was being tried for an offence committed with respect to Explosive Substance Act in terms of Section 7 thereof the trial should not commence except with the sanction of the District Magistrate. Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act is thus: "Restriction on trial of offences:- No court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate." 4 The provision of Section 7 is clear and it puts a complete bar for any trial in relation to an offence under the said Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate. The learned trial court was of the view that the sanction can be obtained at any time before the judgment. I am afraid that such is not the position in respect of Section 7. 5. It is established rule of interpretation that once a legislature has focused of something it is not open to the judges to be wider. The legislature has provided that the trial can be commenced after obtaining sanction. That being so the trial court was in error of jurisdiction in (Sic-not ?) staying the trial till sanction was obtained. The trial court has also observed that the prosecution submitted that the prosecution was only required to establish the charge of the petitioner having explosive substances and exploding them. It is quite misconceived for the reason that discharge can only be put to trial after sanction is obtained and in absence of sanction no person could at all be tried related to Explosive Substances Act. 6. It is quite misconceived for the reason that discharge can only be put to trial after sanction is obtained and in absence of sanction no person could at all be tried related to Explosive Substances Act. 6. I have left no option but to set aside the impugned order and direct that the trial for charge under Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act cannot be proceeded till sanction is obtained from the competent authority as envisaged under the Act. This application is accordingly allowed.