IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34725 of 2010 RAVINDRA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 27.10.2010 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P., for the State what this Court points out to the lower court is that there is a restriction upon the trial of a person for an offence under the Explosive Substances Act without the consent of the District Magistrate, as may appear to it from the provision of Section7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. It is too well known to be pointed out that the trial proceeds as soon as the charge is framed. In that view, charges could not be framed against any person for committing any offence under the Explosive Substances Act,1908 in absence of the consent of the District Magistrate. The learned trial Judge, i.e., F.T.C.-III, Gopalganj while passing order on 2.8.2010 has directed framing of charges under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act also besides directing framing of the charge under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the F.T.C.-III, Gopalganj on 2.8.2010 could not be wholly illegal as the material appears sufficiently available to the trial court for framing of charge under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code against the petitioner. But, the same may also not be sustained as regards the part of the order directing framing of the charges against the solitary accused under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the 2 Explosive Substances Act. This may also be pointed out to the court below that if any consent of the District Magistrate is produced during hearing of the Sessions Trial then it shall be legitimate for the trial court to proceed with the trial also by framing charges under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. As regards the present status, the order is modified to the extent that the charge shall be framed only under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)