IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40991 of 2007 RAM CHANDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 05.02.2010 Heard Shri G.K. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned APP for the State. The petitioner filed a petition under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1155 of 1997 by which he prayed that no charge should be framed against him. Learned Judge, after perusing the whole of the records, came to a conclusion that various offences under the Indian Penal Code and those under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) appeared committed by the accused persons and, as such, the requirement of framing of charges under the sections of the Indian Penal Code indicated in the order passed by him on 20th June, 2007 as also sections 3 and 5 of the Act. The attention of the court was drawn to the provision of section 7 of the Act which reads 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 District Magistrate.” The very language employed by the legislature under section 7 of the Act may indicate that the very proceedings by the court to try any person for an offence under the Act was prohibited unless the consent of the District Magistrate had been obtained. - 2 - Initially, the words „Central Government‟ was appearing at the end of the provision but that appears substituted by the words „District Magistrate‟ by the Amending Act 54 of 2001. It is not disputed that no such consent even of the District Magistrate was obtained on the day or prior to it the impugned order was passed. It is also not disputed that „proceeding to try any person‟ could be said when the court decides to frame a charge and orders the framing of the charges. Thus, the very order of framing charges for the offences under the Act without the consent of the District Magistrate ought not to have been passed in the light of the express restriction on trial of offences, as envisaged under section 7 of the said Act. The order to that extent appears completely erroneous and the same is quashed to that extent, other part of the order standing as it is. It goes without saying that if the consent of the District Magistrate is obtained and produced before the court concerned, it shall have the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the offence at any subsequent stage thereof. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)