The court clarified that the District Magistrate now holds authority for consent under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 after its amendment.

1. The State of Chhattisgarh has preferred this revision under S.397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') questioning the impugned order dated 31.10.2011 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 131/2011 discharging respondent / accused from the charges under S.3 & S.4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (henceforth the 'Act, 1908' ).

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as under: -
2.1 That, the respondent was charge - sheeted for the commission of offences under S.3 & S.4 of the Act, 1908 on the allegation that on 17.06.2011 the Investigating Officer raided the stone crusher site namely Balbam Crusher Udhyog at village Khaira and found the respondent carrying a bag in hand, containing Detonators, Fuse Wires, Ammonium Nitrate and Kerosene etc. and after due - investigation Crime No. 274/11 was registered against the respondent and after consent of the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur under S.7 of the Act, 1908 charge - sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court.
2.2 Respondent filed an application under S.227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of framing charge stating inter alia that cognizance of offences under S.3 & S.4 of the Act, 1908 cannot be taken without the consent of Central Government and the Central Government has delegated the power by notification dated 14.05.1997 to the State Government and the State Government in turn has authorized the District Magistrate to exercise the power and, therefore, consent granted under S.7 of the Act, 1908 by Additional District Magistrate is per se illegal as he was not authorized and competent to accord the consent and it is only the District Magistrate, who is authorized to grant consent under S.7 of the Act.
2.3 Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, learned Sessions Judge, by its impugned order dated 31.10.2011, allowed the application and held that Central Government is the authority, who grant consent under S.7 of the Act and the Central Government had delegated that power to the District Magistrate, thus the consent granted by the Additional District Magistrate is bad in law. Against this order, State of Chhattisgarh has preferred this revision questioning the order impugned.

3. Shri Prasun Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is apparently contrary to the facts and law available on record. He would further submit that S.7 of the Act, 1908 has been amended by the Explosive Substances (Amendment.) Act, 2001 w. e. f. 11.02.2001 and now the power has directly conferred to the District Magistrate under S.7 of the Act, 1908 and by virtue of power contained in S.20 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Additional District Magistrate is also entitled to exercise power of District Magistrate and, as such, the power exercised by the Additional District Magistrate granting consent for trial of the offences under the Act of 1908 cannot be questioned as without authority of and, as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Opposing the submissions made by Shri Prasun Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the State, Shri P. K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is strictly in accordance with and no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge discharging the respondent / accused of the charges under S.3 & S.4 of the Act, 1908 and, therefore, the revision d