Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

38. So far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the District Magistrate/District Collector is not the competent authority to grant consent is concerned, it is seen that prior to the amendment of Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act by Act 54 of 2001, the Central Government was competent to accord consent for prosecution. After the amendment, the power to give consent was conferred on the District Magistrate with effect from 1.2.2002.

39. Mr. S. Doraisamy, the learned Counsel, in support of his submission in challenging the competency of the District Magistrate/District Collector to accord consent, would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh 2000 (1) Supreme 104. In that case, the Central Government vested with the power to accord consent had delegated the said power to the District Magistrate/District Collector in exercise of the power under Section 29. However, the State Government had in turn delegated the power to the Additional District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. While considering the said delegation, the Apex Court held that the further delegation of the power to accord consent to the Additional District Magistrate is invalid.

40. A careful reading of the said judgment shows that Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, as stood before the Amendment Act 54 of 2001, which came into force with effect from 1.2.2002, empowers the Central Government to give consent for prosecution. The said Section read that no Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government.

41. However, by the Amendment Act 54 of 2001, in the place of "Central Government", the words "District Magistrate" were substituted. Hence on and with effect from 1.2.2002, the District Magistrates were also empowered to give consent in terms of the said Section. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for appellants/accused that the date of occurrence was on 7.2.98 when the power to accord consent vested only in the Central Government and therefore the consent order of the District Magistrate in respect of the offence committed prior to 1.2.2002 is invalid. Our attention was drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that even prior to the said Amendment Act 54 of 2001, a notification was issued by the Central Government delegating its power to the District Magistrate and therefore the order of consent given by the District Magistrate is valid. In this context, it is seen that a notification in S.O. 3583 dated 21.2.78 was issued in the name of the President of India by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi entrusting all the District Magistrates in the State with the function of the Central Government under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. The said notification was issued pursuant to the power vested with the President under Article 258(1) of the Constitution of India, which provides that the President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to the Government or its officers the functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. It is also seen that the said notification has been extended to the State of Tamil Nadu as well. Further, the said notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in G.O.Ms. No. 1188 Home Department dated 28.5.1981. In fact the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has brought to our notice a judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Md. Masood Akhtar etc. etc. v. State of Bihar 2000 Crl.L.J. 4282, wherein the said notification has been referred to sustain the consent order given by the District Magistrate prior to the Amendment Act. It appears that the Central Government in order to vest the power by the Act itself had subsequently substituted the words "District Magistrate" in the place of Central Government in Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act by Act 54 of 2001. Hence the contention of the learned Counsel for appellants that the District Magistrate/District Collector was not competent to issue the consent order cannot be accepted.