STATE OF M.P.versusBHUPENDRA SINGH
- Citation
- 2000 INSC 9
- Decided
- 7 January 2000
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The power to grant consent under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act cannot be further delegated to an Additional District Magistrate; therefore, the consent was invalid and the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The respondent was arrested on 17 February 1977 with detonators in his possession and was charged under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. He challenged the prosecution on the ground that the consent required under Section 7 of the Act had not been properly obtained. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh agreed, holding that the consent was invalid and quashed the proceedings. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Central Government’s power to grant consent under Section 7, which it had delegated to the District Magistrate, could be further delegated by the State Government to an Additional District Magistrate. Relying on the principle that a delegation of a delegated power is impermissible and on the decision in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., the Court held that the Additional District Magistrate lacked authority to grant the consent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the consent required under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 can be validly delegated by the Central Government to a District Magistrate and further delegated by the State Government to an Additional District Magistrate.
- Whether the consent obtained by the Additional District Magistrate for the prosecution was valid.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908s. 4, s. 5, s. 7
Subjects
Judgment
A STATE OF M.P.
v.
BHCPENDRA ~INCJH
JANUARY 7, 2000
B [S.P. BHARUC'HA AND
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED OL:ADRl, JJ.]
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 : Section 7.
C Explosive Substances Act-Prosecution under-Consent required
for-Need for obtaining the consent properlJPower to grant con-
sent-Delegated by Central Government to the District Magistrate-Further
delegation by State Government to Additional District Magistrate-Held not
pennissib/e--Delegation of Powers-Administrative Law.
D Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., AIR (1969)
SC 483, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JCRISDIC..'TION : Criminal Appeal No.
21 of WOO. ..
E From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.98 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Crl.R. No. 199 of 1997.
K.N. Shukla, Prakash Jha, Randhir Jain and Uma Nath Singh for the
Appellant.
F Dr. T.N. Singh, B.C. Baruah and Avijit Bhattacharjce for the
Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
G
The respondent was apprehended on 17th February, 1977 and it is
the case of the appellant that detonators were found in his possession. A
charge sheet was filed against him undtr the provisions of Sections 4 and
5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ("'the said Act'). Cognizance was
H taken and the trial proceeded to some t:xtent. The respondent then filed a
104
S'l'AH. V. l3HUPENDKASINGH 105
n:vision petition bdore the: High Court of Madhya Pradesh contending that A
the consent of the Central Government which was rc:quisite under Section
7 of the said Act had not been properly obtaint:d. The High Court accepted
the respondc:nt's contention and quashed the proceedings against him. The
State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal.
B
For a prosc:cution under the said Act, the consent of the Central
Governmt:nt is requisite by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 thereof. By
notification dated 2nd Decembt:r, 1978 the Central Government entrusted
to District Magistrates, inter alia, in the State of Madhya Pradesh its
functions under Section 7 of the said Act.
c
The const:nt for the prosecution of the respondent was granted by
the Additional District Magistrate of the district concerned and, in this
bt:half, n.:Jiance was placed, on behalf of the appdlant, upon a notification
dated 24th April, 1995 iswed by the appdlant when::undt:r it appointed the
joint Colkctor and Executivt: Magistrate as Additional District Magistrate D
for the District of Gwalior and directed that he should "'exercise powers of
District Magistrate conferred under the said Code (Criminal Procedure
Code) or under any other law for the time being in force." The submission
on behalf of the appdlant is that, by reason of the latter notification, the
pow<.01 undn Se<.:tion 7 of the said All ddegat<:d by th..: Central Govern- E
ment to the Dist1'..:t Magis!r dle hctd nnw b~en ddegated lo the Additrnnal
District Magtstrah: and that, accordingly, the consent that he granted for
= :r the prosecution of the respondent was valid.
It is difficult to accept the submission. The power of granting const:nt
under St:ction 7 of the said Act rests with the Central Government. The
F
Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, in our
view, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the
Additional District, Magistrate a power of the Central Government which
the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate.
G
The dt:cision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala
Engineering Co. Ltd., AIR (1969) SC 483 is also of some relevance. This
Court said that where, by virtue of a notification under Section 20 of the
Defence of India Act, the Central Government had delegated its powers
under Section 29 to a District Magistrate, an Additional District H
106 SUPREME COURT RFPORTS [2000J l S.C.R.
A Magistrate was not competent to requisition property under Section 29
simply because he had been invested with all powers of a District
Magistrate under Section 10(2)
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.