State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh, (SC) BS32636

State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh, (SC) BS32636 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. P. Bharucha and S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2000 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2815 of 1998). D/d. 7.1.2000

State of M.P. - Appellant

Versus

Bhupendra Singh - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. K. N. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prakash Jha, Mr. Randhir Jain and Mr. Uma Nath Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Dr. T. N. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B.C. Baruah and Avijit Bhattacharjee, Advocates.

NOTE

Section 7 - Delegation of Power by the District Magistrate to additional District Magistrate for giving the consent to prosecute is not permissible.

Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 7 - Delegation of power - Power to give consent to prosecute accused under Section 7 vested with Central Government Govt. vesting the power to District Magistrate - District Magistrate further delegated power to Additional District Judge District Magistrate - It is invalid delegation - Consent given by Additional to prosecute the accused - Prosecution proceedings quashed. AIR 1969 Supreme Court 483 relied.

[Paras 2 to 5]

Cases Referred :-

Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1969 Supreme Court 483.

ORDER

S. P. Bharucha, J. - Leave granted.

The respondent was apprehended on 17th February, 1977 and it is the case of the appellant that detonators were found in his possession. A charge sheet was filed against him under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ("the said Act"). Cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded to some extent. The respondent then filed a revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh contending that the consent of the Central Government which was requisite under Section 7 of the said Act had not been properly obtained. The High Court accepted the respondent's contention and quashed the proceedings against him. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal.

2. For a prosecution under the said Act, the consent of the Central Government is requisite by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 thereof. By notification dated 2nd December, 1978 the Central Government entrusted to District Magistrates, inter alia, in the State of Madhya Pradesh its functions under Section 7 of the said Act.

3. The consent for the prosecution of the respondent was granted by the Additional District Magistrate of the district concerned and, in this behalf, reliance was placed, on behalf of the appellant, upon a notification dated 24th April, 1995 issued by the appellant whereunder it appointed the Joint Collector and Executive Magistrate as Additional District Magistrate for the District of Gwalior and directed that he should "exercise powers of District Magistrate conferred under the said Code (Criminal Procedure Code) or under any other law for the time being in force." The submission on behalf of the appellant is that, by reason of the latter notification, the power under Section 7 of the said Act delegated by the Central Government to the District Magistrate had now been delegated to the Additional District Magistrate and that, accordingly, the consent that he granted for the prosecution of the respondent was valid.

4. It is difficult to accept the submission. The power of granting consent under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Central Government. The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, in our view, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the Additional District Magistrate a power of the Central Government which Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate.

5. The decision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., AIR 1969 Supreme Court 483 is also of some relevance. This Court said that where, by virtue of a notification under Section 20 of the Defence of India Act, the Central Government had delegated its powers under Section 29 to a District Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate was not competent to requisition property under Section 29 simply because he had been invested with all powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2).

The appeal fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.