The Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1980 are distinct statutes with different objectives and scope. The requirement of consent from the Central Government under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act does not apply to offenses under the Explosives Act.

S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. In the instant application a prayer has been made for quashing of the First Information Report lodged under Sec. 9(B) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 5 of the Explosives Rules (shortly the Rules) as well as the order taking cognizance dated 7.9.1994 for an offence under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Substance Act).

2. Before dealing with the points raised on behalf of the parties, the facts, in brief, are necessary to be stated:

The Sub Inspector of Police, Daltonganj Police Station on getting secret information that a jeep bearing registration No. BHH 5610 was carrying 10 KGs. of explosive articles with detonators and fues from M/s Paramount Explosive Magazine to the office of the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation) whereas, under law, they were entitled to carry only 5 KGs. of explosives at a time, and that the excess quantity of explosive was being supplied to the terrorists, in connivance with the staff of the said Corporation as well as the owner and Manager of the said Corporation. After making Sanha Entry No. 184 and on the direction of the Officer-in-charge, the informant alongwith the Police Party checked the said jeep on the bridge of river, Koel. During checking 10 KGs. Jilletin, 25 fues and 100 detonators were found. On inquiry from the jeep driver, Guput Singh and the clerk, Nabin Kumar Srivastava, who were the occupants of the Jeep, the informant came to know that they were the staffs of the Corporation and were carrying the explosives from M/s. Paramount Explosive Magazine situated at Chianki. They also produced two challans which were in the name of Mines Manager, Semra Mines of the Corporation. The informant was further informed by the driver and the clerk that after issuance of indent from the Mines, the aforesaid explosives were being supplied by M/s. Paramount Explosive.

The First Information Report further discloses that according to the terms of the license, the owner and Manager of the Magazine could have supplied only 5 KGs. Of explosive at a time but as because more than 5 KGs. of explosive were supplied, the owner, Manager of the said Magazine alongwith the driver and the clerk have violated the terms and conditions of the license which is a cognizable offence under the Explosive Act and the Rules. On the basis of said allegation the articles were seized in presence of the independent witnesses.

It appears that Sadar P.S. Case No. 67/ 91, Daltonganj, dated 10.12.1991 was registered under Sec. 9(B) of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules. Charge sheet, after completion of investigation was also submitted under the said section and rule of the Act and Rules, respectively.

3. By order dated 7.9.1994 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sec. 5 of the Substance Act observing that "the Investigating Officer has committed mistake in the charge-sheet by not mentioning the section or sections under which the charge-sheet is submitted".

4. Mr. H.K Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has challenged the said order taking cognizance on the ground that in view of Sec. 7 of the Substance Act cognizance of the offence could not have been taken without the consent of the Central Government. He submits that, as admittedly, no consent was obtained, the order taking cognizance is vitiated in law and has to be set aside. It is further contended that petitioner No.1 being the proprietor of M/s Paramount Explosive, has a valid licence since 8.10.1971 and there is no bar that it cannot sell explosives more than 5 K. Gs. at a time to the purchaser who are having their valid licences duly granted by the Competent Authority. According to the learned counsel, the said Corporation was also having licence on the date of occurrence i.e. on 10.2.1991 and, as such, neither the petitioners nor the employees of the Cor