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

1959 Supreme(All) 210

M.C.DESAI
CHAITANYA PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V.K.S.Choudhary

M. C. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908) for knowingly having in his possession or control an explosive substance in the circumstances showing that he was not having it in his possession, for a lawful object. It has been found as a matter of fact, on the basis of evidence, that he was carrying the explosive bomb in a pocket of his knickers and that it exploded causing injuries to him. He offered no explanation for his possession of the bomb; on the contrary he denied his possession of it altogether.

( 2 ) SECTION 7 of the Act lays down that "no court shall proceed with the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government". The cognizance of the offence under the Act was taken in this case by a court with the consent of the Governor and not the Central Government. The Governor claims to have the power to give consent under notification No. 25/1/54-Police (I) dated 31-8-1954. There is no provision in the Act conferring any power upon the Central Government to delegate its powers and duties to any authority subordinate to it. Section 7 is very clear; it bars







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