4 r ~z3:—../\—~ ”Single Bench IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRXMINAL REVISION Now-{(5 /2o11 (s.B.) REVI$_IONERS :— 1. ABDUL WAHID KHAN S/O. ABDUL MAZID KHAN, AgCd About SO Years, R/O. Gandhi Chowk BILASPUR (C.G.) . SMT. SHABA ‘ VARSIA W/O.‘ ABDUL WAHID, Aged About 48 (é Years, R/O. Gandhi Chowk BILASPUR (C.G.) (Residence Nonnuh ‘hl‘ address is not mention in cause P pmsenxed a W 5““ g u : 3. title SHANU of certified KHAN copy) S/O. MAISHAR Dam! ..... .. ........ KHAN, Aged about 21 years, 4. NAWAB KHAN S/O. MAISHAR KHAN, Aged about 18 years, ' Revisionerv no. 3 and 4 are residence at Chandpur Matki RS. Bharera District Vy'as Bareli (U..P.) present address Khan Farm house Jairam- nagar Bhanesar P.S. Masturi District Biiaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Masturi District ~ Bilaspur (C.G.). xx“ CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 85 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE i i 1%; Cr \ APPLICANTS iminal Revision No.44912011 Abdul Wahid Khan 8a Ors. Versus \ RESPONDENT State 0f Chhattisgarh -\\ ORAL! ORDER (Pa3$ed on 27.8.201 1} Heard on admission. revision petition. dated 29.7.2011 passed by ‘s @ judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of MP. Vs. Bhupendra Singhl. He submits that in the present case, at the time of filing of charge sheet or till the date the charges were framed, the prosecution did not place before the Court any consent as required under the Act of 1908. Therefore, the impugned order of framing charge is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel fort the State submitted that the applicants are not entitled to challenge the order of framing of charge only on the ground that consent under Section 7 of the Act of 1908 was not obtained. He submits that such provision is only procedural and directory and only on that ground, the applicants are riot entitled to challenge the legality and validity of order framing charge. 5. The provision contained in Section 7 ofthe Act of 1908 is reproduced as under: “7. 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 2[District Magistrate] ." 6. Provision contained in Section 7 of the Act of 1908 clearly created a bar against proceedings in a case and try a person for an offence under the Act, except with the consent of the District Magistrate. 1 ANJ page-86 s @ .This aspect came—up for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Jagat Narayan Upadhaya Vs. The State of Bihai‘l, wherein, the High Court has taken a View that the restriction is against proceedings to the trial and the bar will apply when a Court proceeds to try a accused person without the consent of the State Govt. . ln the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges and‘proceeded with the trial of the case. In the absence of there being a statutory consent as required under Section 7 of the Act of 1908, the trial Court could not proceed with the matter by framing charges. Therefore, on this short ground alone, the impugned ordér framing charge, is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. . Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.7.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, by which the charges have been'frarned against the applicants, is set aside. Sdl- Praveen E Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 10. The revision is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 2 (1993) CCR 880