Court No. - 1

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16630 of 2022

Applicant :- Balram Dixit

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Agarval,Rahul Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard Shri Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant

and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

2. This application has been filed for quashing the impugned

order dated 31.5.2022 as well as the order dated 3.6.2022

passed by the learned Session Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act),

Fatehpur in Session Trial No. 196 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs.

Balram Dixit) arising out of case crime no. 153 of 2007 under

Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and under Section

3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Chandpur, District

Fatehpur.

3. The FIR bearing case crime no. 153 of 2007 was lodged

naming the applicant in respect of offences under Explosive

Substances Act, 1908 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

4. It is stated that a chargesheet was filed against the applicant

whereupon Magistrate took the cognizance and summoned the

applicant. By the order dated 23.8.2011, the Additional Sessions

Judge framed two charges against the applicant, one under

Section 4/5/9 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the

other under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act,

1955. Apparently, the applicant filed an application that he

ought to be tried under the provisions of Explosives Act, 1884

and not under the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act,

1908, which application was rejected by the court below by

means of the order dated 6.8.2021. Challenging that order, an

Application U/S 482 No. 16721 of 2021 was filed by the

applicant which were dismissed on 14.12.2021, after noticing

the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant therein

that the trial court had taken cognizance of the offence without

there being any valid sanction. This Court had observed that the

applicant may appear and raise all those contentions before the

trial court which was to consider the same. Accordingly, the

application dated 16.4.2022 was filed by the applicant which is

on record as Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit. By the order dated

13.5.2022, the court below held that there are sufficient grounds

for altering the charges against the applicant to Section 4/5 of

the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 3/7 of the

Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thereafter, as has been stated

in paragraph no. 20 of the affidavit, the applicant moved an

application before the court that necessary sanction be obtained

by the competent authority first before proceeding with the

matter. However, by means of the impugned order dated

3.6.2022, the application of the applicant was rejected and

while rejecting the application, the court below has held that

cognizance had already been taken by the appropriate Court and

the court has jurisdiction under the provisions of the Explosive

Substances Act, 1908 and the Essential Commodities Act and

since the matter is pending for a long time for hearing,

therefore, the application filed by the applicant (that pertained

to the jurisdiction of the court below) can be decided at the time

of final disposal of the case.

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that

given the provisions of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities

Act and Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, there

is a restriction on the court from taking cognizance of any

offence and from proceeding with the trial of any person for any

offence under the Act, respectively. It is contended that the

issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and unless the

issue regarding jurisdiction is decided by the court, it cannot

proceed with the matter.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application stating that as it

evident from the impugned orders passed by the court below,

the case is pending for a long time and when the case is being

li