Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. Both the cases arise from the same judgment and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appellants, namely, Janardan Yadav and Satya Narayan Yadav have been convicted under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellant, Shyamdeo Yadav has been convicted under sec. 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 3. On the other hand, Cr. Revision No. 241 of 2001 has been filed by the informant of East Colony P.S. Case No. 5/94 for quashing the aforesaid judgment and order relating to acquittal of the appellants mentioned above under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and also for enhancement of sentence passed by the learned trial court under sec. 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The prosecution case, in short, as per the written report (Ext. 4) by the informant (P.W. 10) is that on 3.2.1994 at about 12.30 P.M. he had gone to Railway Authority Club, Jamalpur to receive the Chief Railway Engineer, Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and Additional Divisional Engineer, Sonepur, who were scheduled to arrive there. Further it is alleged that at about 3 P.M. he learnt through a telephonic message that the aforesaid Engineers/Officers were late in arriving at Jamalpur. The informant at about 3.15 P.M. left the club on his motor cycle for his home with one Mantu Kumar (P.W. 7) and as soon as the informant went out of the southern gate of the club and proceeded towards the west, he saw the accused persons and one unknown man standing there. It was alleged that the appellant Shyam Deo Yadav ordered to kill the informant with bombs and on his order the appellant, Janardan Yadav took out a bomb from the Jhola in his hand and hurled the same towards the informant. Soon after the appellant, Satya Narayan Yadav who too had a bomb in his hand hurled the same towards the informant. Those bombs were exploded but the informant did not sustain any injury. On hearing the sound of bombs, several persons started assembling there. But the appellant, Shyamdeo Yadav started chasing them with his regular gun. It was alleged that incident was witnessed by Suresh Yadav (P.W. 3), Jawahar Yadav (PW. Those bombs were exploded but the informant did not sustain any injury. On hearing the sound of bombs, several persons started assembling there. But the appellant, Shyamdeo Yadav started chasing them with his regular gun. It was alleged that incident was witnessed by Suresh Yadav (P.W. 3), Jawahar Yadav (PW. 4), Ram Naresh Prasad (P.W. 5) and other persons. As per the informant, these appellants and one another person conspired to kill him with bomb and the informant also claimed that if he would have not speeded up his motor cycle he would have been murdered by the appellants. On the written information given to the police East Police Station Colony, Jamalpur an F.I.R. (Ext. 5) was registered bearing East Colony P.S. case No. 5/94 dated 3.2.1994. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants under sec. 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The case was committed to the court of session and the trial was taken up with the result as indicated above. 5. The defence of the appellants was that they were innocent and falsely implicated by the informant due to previous enmity on account of certain criminal cases, in order to pressurise them and their family members not to persue the same. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, Md. Afsar Ali has proved (Ext. 1) formal F.I.R. and PW. 6, Binoy Kumar Singh has proved sanction order (Ext. 2). PW. 8 Sahadar Hussain is a seizure list witness and P.W. 12 Umesh Kumar Mishra has proved the pages 59 to 93 of the case diary (Ext. 7). P.W. 10 is the informant and RW. 11 is the I.O. of this case. P.W.2, Chunkeshwar claims to be an eye witness of the occurrence alongwith Mantu Kumar, P.W. 7. P.W.3, Suresh Yadav is the brother of the informant. P.W.4, Jawahar Yadav is the cousin brother of the informant and P.W. 5, Ram Naresh Prasad is the father of the informant. 7. P.W. 10, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he had gone to the Jamalpur Railway Officers Club on the day of occurrence at about 12.30 P.M. to receive the officials of the railway to arrive there. 7. P.W. 10, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he had gone to the Jamalpur Railway Officers Club on the day of occurrence at about 12.30 P.M. to receive the officials of the railway to arrive there. He has further stated that he is a contractor in the Railway Department and when he learnt that the Officers were coming late he proceeded towards his house by his motor cycle at 3.15 PM. alongwith one Mantu Kumar who was a pillion rider on his motor cycle. When he came out of the club from the southern gate and proceeded towards west of the Pakki road he saw these appellants and one unknown person standing there. The appellant, Shyam Deo Yadav was armed with his gun and other appellants, Janardan Yadav and Satya Naranan Yadav were having a Jhola in his hand. On seeing him, appellant Shyamdeo Yadav ordered to kill him on which accused Janardan Yadav hurled a bomb and thereafter accused Satya Narayan Yadav also hurled a bomb on him. He then speeded up his motor cycle in order to save himself from the injuries. But the bomb exploded and he did not sustain any injury. He has further stated that while he was running away on his motor cycle he saw Shyamdeo Yadav chasing the people who had assembled there on hearing the sound of the explosion of the bombs. The accused, Shyamdeo Yadav had a licensee gun in his hand. He has further stated that Jawahar Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Ram Naresh Yadav and others had seen the alleged occurrence. The witnesses have also stated that they planned earlier to kill him and they had knowledge that he was to go to club to receive the officials, thus, they were waiting for him and in order to kill him they threw the bomb. He has further stated that he went to East Colony Jamalpur police station where he lodged the F.I.R. He has also proved his written report (Ext. 4). According to him the police immediately went to the place of occurrence and seized the part of the exploded bombs. He also identified the accused Satya Narayan Yadav in the court and claimed to identify other appellants who were not in the court. 4). According to him the police immediately went to the place of occurrence and seized the part of the exploded bombs. He also identified the accused Satya Narayan Yadav in the court and claimed to identify other appellants who were not in the court. He has further stated in his cross-examination that the brother of the appellant, Satya Narayan Yadav was also a contractor in the Railway Department and thus they had bad and ill motive with him. 8. P.W. 2, Dhunkeshwar had deposed that at about 3.15 P.M. on the day of occurrence while he was going to market he heard the sound of explosion of two bombs he proceeded towards and he saw four persons but he could not identify them. But one of them had gun and two had Jholas in their hands. He also found a crowd near the railway club and he learnt that the accused persons and one other hurled bombs on him to take away his life. He also found parts of exploded bomb there and in his presence the police seized those parts of the exploded bombs The seizure list was also signed by Sahadat Hussain. 9. P.W. 3, Suresh Yadav, P.W. 4, Jawahar Yadav and RW. 5, Ram Naresh Prasad are closely related with the informant. They have also supported the case of the prosecution as narrated by the informant. P.W. 3 also claims that on the date of occurrence he had gone to club to receive the Chief Engineer and Additional Divisional Engineer alongwith Prakash Chandra. He has further stated that his brother Prakash Yadav proceeded on his motor cycle with Mantu Kumar. He also proceeded to his home and as soon as he came out from the southern gate of the club, the accused Janardan Yadav and Satya Narayan Yadav threw the bombs on him but he succeeded in fleeing away and did not sustain any injury. He has further stated that when the people started assembling, the accused Shyamdeo Yadav chased them. He has also stated that his statement was recorded by the police. He identified accused Satya Narayan Yadav and Janardan Yadav in the court and claimed to identify the accused Shyamdeo Yadav, who was not present. He has also stated that one unknown person was with him but he did not recognise. He has also stated that his statement was recorded by the police. He identified accused Satya Narayan Yadav and Janardan Yadav in the court and claimed to identify the accused Shyamdeo Yadav, who was not present. He has also stated that one unknown person was with him but he did not recognise. In his cross examination he had denied the suggestion that due to previous enmity he has falsely deposed in this case. 10. P.W. 4 an employee of Jamalpur Notified Area Committee has claimed that he was present at that time near Jamalpur Railway Club for getting bushes cleared by the labourers and he has supported that the bomb was hurled on the informant by the appellant Janardan Yadav and Satya Narayan Yadav but due to speed of the motor cycle the informant did not sustain injury. He has also supported that Shyam Deo Yadav chased the persons who assembled near the place of occurrence. 11. P.W. 5, Ram Naresh Prasad is the father-in-law of the informant working in the Railway Department at Barauni. He has also claimed that he had gone to Jamalpur to receive the authorities of the railway and has also claimed to see the alleged occurrence. He has further stated that the police recorded his statement after three days of the alleged occurrence. He has further stated that the bomb did not hit the motor cycle and the said motor cycle was not damaged. According to him after explosion of bomb accused Shyamdeo Yadav threatening the people who started assembling there. 12. P.W. 7, Mantu Kumar has claimed to be an independent witness has stated that when he was going to his house as a pillion rider as the motor cycle was driven by the informant he saw another person on the road and on the order of the accused Shyamdeo Yadav, accused Janardan Yadav and Satya Narayan Yadav hurled bombs which did not hit them but it exploded and nobody got any injury. According to him the police spy chased the person who tried to assemble there. 13. P.W. 9 is Mr. B.K. Mishra, the Assistant Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Muzaffarpur. He had been examined on the point as to whether the remnants seized by the I.O. on the place of occurrence are of exploded bombs. He has further stated that he received two paper packets. 13. P.W. 9 is Mr. B.K. Mishra, the Assistant Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Muzaffarpur. He had been examined on the point as to whether the remnants seized by the I.O. on the place of occurrence are of exploded bombs. He has further stated that he received two paper packets. One packet marked I had small pieces of Sutlies and other packet marked II had some iron Katies of yellowish colour. He has further stated that both the materials were chemically examined by him. He has proved his report as Ext. 3 which shows that the articles were residues of prohibited sensetive explosive mixture of Arsenic Sulphide and Potassiun Chlorate. According to-him the articles kept in the paper packet marked II remnants of exploded bombs. 14. P.W. 11 is the I.O. of the case. He has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 12.20 P.M. he inspected the place of occurrence and took the statements of the witnesses and also seized the remnants of the exploded bombs as per the seizure list (Ext. 6) in presence of two witnesses Dhunkeshwar (P.W. 2) and Sahadat Hussain (RW. 8). He has also given correct location of the place of occurrence where he saw signs of explosion of bomb. He also seized some pieces of Sutlies and small pieces of iron jaties yellowish colour from the place of occurrence. 15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that P.Ws. 3, 4., 5 and 7 are witnesses closely related to each other and also with the informant (P.W. 10). P.Ws. 3, 4, 7 and 10 are men of criminal antecedent and habitual criminals and used to commit crimes. In support of which attention has been drawn towards Exts. A/1 to A/4. It has been further submitted that the place of occurrence is busiest place in the locality and just adjacent to the police station, and in this view of the matter it was not safe and rather impossible for the appellants to stand there for hours with gun and bombs without being intercepted. The appellants, Janardan Yadav and Shyamdeo Yadav have been falsely implicated in this case as they were Government employees. The falsity of the case would further be evident from the fact that no injury was sustained by the informant and pillion rider (RW. The appellants, Janardan Yadav and Shyamdeo Yadav have been falsely implicated in this case as they were Government employees. The falsity of the case would further be evident from the fact that no injury was sustained by the informant and pillion rider (RW. 7) neither the motor cycle got damaged even road was also intact without any damage. No ingredient of sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted and the prosecution could not prove any motive behind the occurrence. The appellant, Satya Narayan Yadav has no any business relation with the informant and certainly he is the next door neighbour of the informant. There is also no intention to kill the informant because as alleged there was licensee gun in the hand of the appellant, Shyamdeo Yadav and he could have shot the informant dead by gun but as per the case bombs were thrown that too alleged to have been thrown by the two appellants who were also next door neighbours of the informant in the native village. 15A. It has been further submitted that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable even P.W. 1 who is a formal witness has stated that he never worked with the I.O. (P.W. 11) but has been examined to identify his signature. Similarly P.W. 2, seizure list witness has stated that he heard about the occurrence by P.W. 3 at about 3.15 P.M. whereas seizure list was prepared at about 3.30 P.M. It shows that there is ante time and statement is false. P.W.3 is an Advocate and brother of the informant. He has been sent to jail in several cases. He has given contradictory version about Mantu Kumar (P.W. 7), P.W. 4, Jawahar Yadav is also an accused in Jamalpur PS. Case No. 23 of 1994 (Ext. A/3) for offences under sections 302, 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code alongwith the Arms Act in which it has been alleged that he tried to kill appellant no. 3 but one another person, Mithilesh Singh died on the spot. P.W. 5, Ram Naresh Prasad is a planted witness. On the date and time of the occurrence he was posted at Barauni Railway and the Officers were to come from Gorakhpur and Sonepur and he had no written instruction to attend them at Jamalpur. His statement was recorded after two days by police. P.W. 5, Ram Naresh Prasad is a planted witness. On the date and time of the occurrence he was posted at Barauni Railway and the Officers were to come from Gorakhpur and Sonepur and he had no written instruction to attend them at Jamalpur. His statement was recorded after two days by police. I.O. (P.W. 11) has not found any damage on the road due to explosion of bomb, as per paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief but P.W. 5 the planted witness has stated in paragraph 9 that road got damaged due to explosion of bomb which falsifis his evidence. P.W. 7 is business partner of the informant. P.W. 8 though a seizure list witness but his statement was not recorded by the police. P.W. 9 the official of Forensic Science Laboratory, in paragraph 3 has stated that Sutali was not found burnt. He has also not given any report about the percentage of chemical available. The presence of the informant (P.W. 10) is also doubtful and the trial court should have considered as to how he could go to the club without any invitation and without any entry in register of the club as per club notes. No staff of the Officers club have been examined to prove that they were there for three hours waiting for the officials concerned. As such the story of the prosecution is false and concocted. 16. He has also relied on the decisions reported by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 1988 (4) SC C. 551 Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh & ors. in support of his contention. In the case of Hari Singh (supra) it was held that intention or knowledge is must for the conviction under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court further held that the accused party carrying sharp-edged weapons but using only blunt side of it even after suffering injuries by sharp edged weapons wielded by the opposite party is a very significant circumstance showing absence of intention or knowledge and suddenness of the incident and accused therefore are entitled to acquittal under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been further submitted that in this case too they were having gun as well but allegedly used the bomb and that too did not damage informant or scooter even the road shows that the appellants had no intention to kill the informant. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been further submitted that in this case too they were having gun as well but allegedly used the bomb and that too did not damage informant or scooter even the road shows that the appellants had no intention to kill the informant. The another decision of this Court which has been relied upon is not relevant to this case. 17. The counsel for the informant in Cr. Rev. No. 241 of 2001 has submitted that the learned Judge has erroneously acquitted the opposite party under sec. 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and only convicted the accused persons under sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code and they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years to the appellants Janardan Yadav and Satya Narayan Yadav whereas accused Shyamdeo Yadav has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years only. It was contended that the trial court has wrongly held that the proper sahction was not obtained, thus the court can not convict the appellants under sec. 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act. The court has also wrongly held that the District Magistrate who has given sanction had no power under the Act to issue sanction. It has been further submitted that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court is meagre considering the seriousness and gravity of the allegation and the case. The learned court ought to have awarded a sentence of 10 years of imprisonment under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and five years under sec. 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. The main point raised in revision is against the acquittal of the appellants under sec. 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act (in short the Act) is about power of sanction. The court below has held that the District Magistrate was not empowered to grant sanction for trial of any person under this Act at the relevant time. 19. The contention of the learned counsel that even though there was sanction granted by the District Magistrate the court on technical ground found that the appellants deserve acquittal as there was no sanction granted by the Government which was necessary under section 7 of the Act. 20. According to section 7 of the Act consent from the State Government was required for proceeding the trial under the Act. 20. According to section 7 of the Act consent from the State Government was required for proceeding the trial under the Act. In the year 1994 when occurrence took place and also when the trial was initiated and adjudicated too. Only in the year 2001 by Act 54 of 2001 it was the District Magistrate whose consent was made necessary. In that view of the matter the order of the court below acquitting the appellants under sec. 3/4 of the Act on the technical ground of sanction granted by an authority not empowered to do so does not suffer from any illegality and is proper in the eye of law. 21. The quantum of sentence is to be considered together with the contention of the learned counsel of Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 1999. As far considering the contention of the learned counsel of Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 1999 so raised and appreciation of the evidence of the material witnesses, namely, P.W.s. 4, 5, 7 and 10 who are closely related it appears that there was no damage either of the road and even to the motor cycle undoubtedly no injury was done to the person of the informant Prakash Chandra Yadav neither to the pillion rider Mantu Kumar (P.W. 7). PW. 2 Dhunkeshwar not related to the informant does not support the case and he only supports that he heard explosion of bomb. No independent witness though a crowd assembled was examined. Presence of P.W. 5 is doubtful and suspicious as he was posted at Barauni and he claimed that he was deputed by railway to receive the senior Officials who were to arrive at Jamalpur but could not produce any paper or order in support thereof to this effect. Thus he could be doubted as planted witness even his statement was recorded three days after the occurrence. 22. From the above discussions it is evidently clear that since there was no proper consent under section 7 of the Act, the court below has rightly acquitted the appellants under sec. 3/4 of the Act. As such Cr. Revision No. 241 of 2001 is dismissed as the point raised therein has no merit. 23. It is also apparent from the above discussions that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The involvement of the appellants in the alleged occurrence of throwing bomb has not been proved. 3/4 of the Act. As such Cr. Revision No. 241 of 2001 is dismissed as the point raised therein has no merit. 23. It is also apparent from the above discussions that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The involvement of the appellants in the alleged occurrence of throwing bomb has not been proved. As such the appellants deserve benefit of doubt and are acquitted of their charges under sec. 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Cr. Appeal No. 47 of 1999 is allowed.