Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

whereby the court has convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 337, 324 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants Ramashish Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav and Krishna Yadav have also been held guilty for the charge under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and further appellants Ramashish Yadav and Sahdeo Yadav have been held guilty for the charge under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo S.I. for one month. All the appellants/convicts have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code each and for the offence under Sections 337/149 of the Indian Penal Code three Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1163 of 2016 dt.10-09-2024 months each and for the offence under Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo R.I. for one year. Appellants/convicts Ramashish Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav and Krishna Yadav have also been held guilty for the charge under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and they have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years each. Appellants Ramashish Yadav and Sahdeo Yadav have also been held guilty for the charge under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and in default of payment fine, they have to undergo S.I. for 15 days. All the sentences of all the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.

(i) Lalan Paswan vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2024 (2) PLJR 483
(ii) Judgment dated 04.09.2023 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.111 of 1996 (Rambilash Mahto & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar) and analogous matter.

5.5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that as per provisions contained in Section 7 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, no Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence committed under the said Act except with Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1163 of 2016 dt.10-09-2024 the consent of the Central Government/District Magistrate. It is submitted that in the present case, consent of the Central Government was not obtained and, therefore, trial is vitiated qua the offence punishable under the said Act and the conviction recorded for commission of the offence under the said Act is to be set aside only on this ground.

24.3. At this stage, we would also like to refer the de- cisions on this point. In the case of State of T.N. versus Sivarasan alias Raghu alias Sivarasa & Ors., reported in (1997) 1 SCC 682 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ob- served in paragraph-28 as under:

"28. With respect to the finding regarding sanc- tion we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in treating it as not legal and valid. Section 7 does not require a sanction but only consent for prosecuting a person for an offence under the Explosive Substances Act. The object of using the word "consent" instead of "sanction" in Section 7 is to have a purely subjective appreciation of the matter before giving the necessary consent. To prove the consent the prose- cution had examined PW 52 Balachandran who was then act- ing as the PA of the District Collector. He has deposed about the requisition sent by the investigating officer and the reports and other documents sent along with it and consideration of the same by the District Collector before giving his consent. In his cross-examination he stated that he had not noticed in the relevant file statements of witnesses. Relying upon this answer given by the witness the learned Sessions Judge held that in absence of such statements the District Collector cannot be said to have applied his mind properly to the facts of the case before granting the sanction. From the evidence of the witness and the copy of the proceedings of the Collector it appears that the Inspector of Police had sent his report regarding the evi- dence collected by him together with a copy of the FIR, the re- ports of the Forensic Department and other connected record. Thus, the Mahazars under which the "explosive substances"

24.5. A Division Bench of this Court in Cri. Appeal No. 111 of 1995 in the case of Shobrati Mian and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar has observed in paragraph-3 as under:

"3. So far as the conviction of the appellant No. 1 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act is con- cerned, the same is non-est for the reason that no proper sanc- tion for prosecution of this appellant was accorded, as required by Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. In this case con- sent for his prosecution was given by the District Magistrate of Godda who is not competent to grant sanction. It is clear from Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 that consent for prosecution is to be granted by the Central Government or by the State Government by virtue of the powers delegated by this Act. This question was considered by the Punjab High Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1163 of 2016 dt.10-09-2024 Court in AIR 1971 Punjab 246 and 1982 Cr.L.J. 2020. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jagat Narayan Upadhya v. State of Bihar (MANU/BH/0349/1992 : 1993 (1) PLJR 235 : 1993 (1) BLJ 473, has also taken the same view. The conviction of this appellant No. 1 under the Explosive Substances Act is, therefore, non-est. and without jurisdiction and the same is accordingly quashed."