SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(Cal) 192

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. K. Sen, N. K. Sen
SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, W. BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
NESARUDDIN SHAIKH - Respondent
Government Appeal 11  Of  1960
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 29, 1961

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SEN, KISHORE MUKHARJI, S.N.BANERJEE

The Central Government can delegate its power to grant consent under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to the State Governments under Article 258 (1) of the Constitution.

Headnote:

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 - SECTION 7 - CONSENT OF STATE GOVERNMENT - VALIDITY - DELEGATION OF POWER BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT - ARTICLE 258 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION - NOTIFICATION NO. 33/2/57-POLICE-IV, DATED 14TH MAY, 1957 - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent was charged under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, for possessing six country-made throw-down crackers dangerous to life. The State Government had given consent for the prosecution, but the Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent on a preliminary point of law, holding that the consent should have been given by the Central Government.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the consent given by the State Government was valid, as the Central Government had delegated its power to grant consent to the State Governments under Article 258 (1) of the Constitution. The Court also held that the Notification No. 33/2/57-Police-IV, dated 14th May, 1957, by which the Central Government had delegated its power to the State Governments, was valid.

Issues: 1. Whether the consent given by the State Government was valid under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908? 2. Whether the Central Government could delegate its power to grant consent to the State Governments?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, requires the consent of the Central Government for the trial of any person for an offence against the Act. 2. Article 258 (1) of the Constitution empowers the President to entrust the functions of the Central Government to a State Government with its consent. 3. The Central Government had delegated its power to grant consent under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, to the State Governments by Notification No. 33/2/57-Police-IV, dated 14th May, 1957. 4. The delegation of power by the Central Government was valid under Article 258 (1) of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge. The Court directed that the respondent be tried in accordance with the law.

S. K. SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Legal Remembrancer, Gov-ernment of West Bengal on behalf of the State of West Bengal against an order by Shri S. K. Chakravarti, Sessions Judge, Murshidabad acquitting the respondent Nesaruddin snaikh in respect of a charge under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 on a preliminary point of law. The respondent was committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Murshidabad under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the allegation against him being that on 19th December, 1956 six country-made throw-down crackers dangerous to life were found in the possession ot the respondent. When the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, a preliminary objection on a point of law was taken, that as consent under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act had been given by the State Government and not by the Central Government as required by the Section, the trial could not proceed, me learned Judge accepted this preliminary objection on the strength of a decision of the Allahabad High Court Chaitanya Prakash v. State.

( 2 ) THE point for decision before us is whether the consent given by the State Government is a sufficient con- sent in terms of Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1903.

( 3 ) SECTION 7 of the Explosive Substances Act as it stands at present is as follows: "no Court shall proceed with the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government. " in the Allahabad case, Desai, J. referred to the Notification No. 25/1/54 Police-1, dated 31-8-54, by which the power of the Central Government under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act was delegated to the State Governments. Desai, J. , however, held that such order of delegation was invalid. He observed that there was no provision in the Explosive Substances Act itself conferring any power upon the Central Government to delegate its powers and duties to any authority subordinate to it; that what is required is the specific consent by the Central Government to the particular prosecution and not a general consent; and the direction by the Central Government that it gives can-sent to all prosecutions that are consented to or sanctioned by a subordinate authority cannot be accepted as a valid consent to a particular prosecution by the Central Government, even though the subordinate authority has given specific consent to the same.

( 4 ) MR. S. N. Banerjeo, appearing for the State, has referred us to the terms of the Notification No. 25/1/54 Police-I, dated 1st September, 1954 and the subsequent Notification No. 33/2/57-Police-IV, dated 14th May, 1957, and he has pointed out that what the Central Government has done is not to give a general consent to all prosecutions that are consented to by the subordinate authority, but has delegated or entrusted its executive power of granting consent in specific cases to the State Governments. The terms of the latest Notification, namely, Notification Ho. 33/2/57-Police-IV, dated 14th May, 1957 are as follows :"in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution and in supersession of all previous Notifications on the subject, the President hereby entrusts to all State Governments, with their consent, the functions of the Central Government under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908". Clause (1) of Article 258 of the Constitution runs as follows :"notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that Government or to its officers the functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. "granting of consent to a particular prosecution is an exercise of the executive power. It is clear, therefore, that under Article 258, Clause (1), the Central Government may with the consent of the Government of a State, ent








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top