IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49404 of 2006 JUGAL YADAV ASHOK YADAV ARJUN YADAV AWADH KISHORE YADAV AYODHYA YADAV ALL ARE SONS OF HURO YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ORAIYA RAJALA, P.S.JHAJHA, DISTRICT JAMUI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 11 8.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 22.7.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui whereby cognizance has been taken under section ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that section 7 of the Explosive Substance Act mandates that no court shall proceed with the trial of any person for an offence against the Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate. On 13.4.2007 a notice was issued to the Opposite party no.2 and a report was called for from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui as to whether sanction in the instant case has been obtained from the competent authority or not. It appears from letter no.9 dated 7.5.2009 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jamui that no sanction has been taken by the I.O. from the competent authority. Learned counsel for the Opposite party no.2 submits that the informant should not suffer on account of fault of the I.O. in 2 KHAN taking sanction under section 7 of the Explosive Substance Act from the competent authority. He submits that such attitude on the part of the District administration would allow the accused committing an offence under the Explosive Substance Act Scot free. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners submits that the provision of law has to be applied strictly. Having heard counsel for the parties, this court finds that section 7 of the Explosive Substance Act mandates that no court shall proceed with trial of any person for an offence under the Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate. The consent of the District Magistrate having been not obtained, the proceeding against the accused petitioners under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act is bad in law and as such cognizance so far as it relates to section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act is quashed. However, if subsequently sanction is obtained under section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act, it would be open for the prosecution to bring it to the notice of the learned court below for proceeding against the petitioners under the Act. In the result, this application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. (S.P.Singh,J)