R.N.Lal, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Gardanibagh P.S. case No. 151 of 1984, dated 27.6.1984 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner under sections 121(A), 120(B), 109 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and section 6 of the Explosive Substance Act.

2. On 30th March, 1984 one Martin Tirki, Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge was on duty inside the Bihar Vidhan Sabha which was in session at about 12.15 p.m. Martin Tirki heard a sound of explosion, rushed inside the hall of the House and found Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Ganesh Prasad interrogating one man, namely, Arbind Kumar Singh, who had allegedly thrown the bomb inside the House. Arbind Kumar Singh had not access to the public gallery on the basis of a pass issued by one Shri Ramji Singh, M.LA. Congress (I). Shri Arbind Kumar Singh described himself as Vice- President of the District Committee of Rashtriya Sanjay March, Arrah. He had shouted several slogans from that gallery while the House was in session. He disclosed that he had done so to frighten the Government to de-centralise the capital and to bring change in the social order. It was further stated by him that he had done it as decided by a meeting held in Arrah. The Hon ble Speaker of the Bihar Vjdhan Sabha convicted him for Contempt of House and forwarded him to the Police for prosecuting him under the other provisions of the criminal law in usual way. The Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and thereafter cognizance was taken as referred to above.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision to throw a bomb within the House of Bihar vidhan Sabha, while in session, had been taken at a meeting held in Arrah in which the petitioner was present but there is nothing to show that he had spoken anything or was a party to that decision. As such it cannot be said that he acted according to the decision of that meeting. It was further alleged that for a prosecution under section 6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 consent of the Central Government is a necessity under section 7 of the said Explosive Substance Act, 1908 which reads as follows:

"7. No court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government".

4. As regards other offences the learned counsel relied on sec. 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is as fallows:

"196. (1) No court shall take cognizance of (a) any offence punishable under chapter VI or under sec. 153-A, sec. 153-B, sec. 295-A or sec. 505 of the Indian Penal Code, or

(b) a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or

(c) any such abetment, as is described in sec. 108-A of the Indian Penal Code, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government.

(2) No court shall take cognizance of the offence of any criminal conspiracy punishable under sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, other than a criminal conspiracy to commit a cognizable offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, unless the State Government or the District Magistrate has consented in writing to the initiation of the proceedings: Provided that where the criminal conspiracy is one to which the provisions of sec. 195 apply, no such consent shall be necessary. So according to him the prosecution for the offences under sections 121-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, no court can take cognizance without the previous sanction of the Central or the State Government. Apparently according to the learned counsel no sanction had been obtained by the prosecution from the State Government in this regard. Learned counsel further added that cognizance in this case had been taken on 27.6.1984. The City Superintendent of Police, Patna, had sent a letter vide memo No. 3062 dated 12.7.1984 to t