THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1458 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1 On the basis of a report given by P.W.1, initially a case in Cr.No.241 of 1993 was registered by the Special Investigating Team against the respondents herein for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 286, 436 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC, under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. After investigation a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as PRC No.26 of 1996 before the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and after committal the same was numbered as PRC No.253 of 1996 before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Communal Offence Cases – cum – VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Red Hills, Hyderabad. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.45. The trial court having assessed the said evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed in bringing home the guilt of the respondents and accordingly by its judgment dated 01.06.2007 acquitted the respondents. The same is questioned by the State by filing this appeal. 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.1993 at about 11.50 PM there was a bomb explosion at the traffic signal junction box in front of Abids Police Station. In the said blast one Subbarayudu who was examined as P.W.6 sustained injuries. Habeebuddin H.C. 4094 of Abids Police station, on hearing the sound of bomb, rushed to the traffic signal junction box, noticed the same was damaged and found pieces of metal nails scattered around the place. On the complaint lodged by him, the present crime was registered under sections 286, 436 and 324 of IPC and under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act by Mohd. Razzak A.S.I. of Abids Police Station. The injured was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment. The Sub Inspector of Police Abids Police station K. Dushyantulu visited the scene of offence and took up investigation. During the course of investigation in Cr.No.151 of 1993 it was detected the existence of deep rooted criminal conspiracy to strike terror in the people to adversely affect harmony among the different sections of the people, used bombs and other explosive substances and one dr.Jalees Ansari was the brain behind the conspiracy and the present accused herein and some other who were the members of Muslim Fundamentalist Organization known as ‘TANZEEM ISLAHUL MUSLIMEEN’ are parties to this conspiracy. They procured explosive materials and hand grenades, acquired firm arms and ammunition and used illegal organization to get Kashmir separated from India, which amounted to disruptive activities under TADA Act and also further to communal terrorist acts. During the course of investigation the accused i.e. respondents herein were arrested and on their voluntary confessions the police authorities recovered incriminating material against them. After obtaining necessary sanction orders for prosecuting the respondents / accused under TADA Act, Explosive Substances Act and Indian Arms Act from the Commissioner of Police Hyderabad City Sections 5 & 6 of TADA Act were also added. The investigation reveals that blast occurred at the traffic signal junction in front of the Abids Police Station was in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the accused and as such they are liable for punishment under the above sections of law. 3 Heard. 4 In my considered view, the court below is justified in recording acquittal. Apparently when once the respondents herein are charged under sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, as per the provisions of the said Act, sanction by the competent authority is required. In the case on hand the sanction order is marked as Ex.P.5 and the same was issued by the Commissioner of Police in the capacity of Additional District Magistrate. In fact, it is only the District Magistrate who is the competent authority to issue necessary sanction orders, but not the persons who are on deputation or working as in charge or holding additional charge. The law is very well settled on this aspect. In M. sarveshwar Rao @ Loodh Kumar @ Raju @ Naresh, Rajanagar Vs. State of A.P. [1] the said view has been reiterated by this court also. Apparently, the sanction order which was marked as Ex.P.45 is issued by the Commissioner of Police who was examined as P.W.17. That apart, the sanction which has been granted is not valid sanction in the eye of law. Further, the crime was registered in the year 1993 i.e. about 18 years back and this court is of the view that this is also a ground taken by the court below to take a lenient view. 5 For the above reasons, I see no merits in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. -------------- 25.01.2011 Kvsn [1] 2005 (7) ALT (CRL) 207 (A.P)