9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... templated therein. It reads thus:- "Section 7:- No court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government." It must be stated here that by Act 54 of 2001, Section 7 was amended and the words "Central Government" were substituted by the words "District Magistrate". 4. The appellant claims to be a trader registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. According to him, he deals in Kerosene, lubricants, paints, varnish, thinner, petroleum products and has a license for the storage of solvents, petrochemicals and raw materials used for the purpose of blasting for mining, roads and other end uses. The prosecution alleges that on 2/5/2006 at about 6.40 p.m. a fire broke out in the shop/store of the appellant situated at Gandhinagar Vistar Yojana, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan due to which many children, women and men were burnt alive. The SHO, Reserve Center, Chittorgarh, upon receiving telephonic information from an unknown caller, visited the spot and registered the First Information Report against three persons under Sections 285, 286, 323, 324, 304 of the Indian Penal Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the offences under the said Act. Learned Sessions Judge, however, noted that it was his prima facie view that the appellant had not taken adequate care while conducting his business of storing and marketing of inflammable substances. He further noted that prima facie, it was evident that carelessness of the appellant led to the fire in his shop killing 14 persons and injuring many. He, therefore, directed that charge for the offences under Sections 285, 286 and 304 of the IPC be framed against the appellant on the next date of hearing of the case. It is pertinent to note that the appellant challenged order dated 13/9/2007 before learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court. The said petition was dismissed. 6. On 3/4/2008, the SHO, Reserve Centre, Kotwali moved an application through the Addl. Public Prosecutor along with sanction letter issued on 1/4/2008 by the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh. On 15/5/2010, learned Sessions Judge rejected the application on the ground that sanction to prosecute the appellant under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been granted by the District Magistrate, however, it is not under Section 7 of the said Act. A copy of the sanction order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court in Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen. 9. The explosion which took place in the appellant"s shop resulted in death of 14 persons. Several persons were severely injured. Seriousness of the occurrence can hardly be disputed. Learned Sessions Judge has framed charges against the appellant for offences under the IPC because in his prima facie opinion, there is enough material against the appellant to bring home the said charges. It is unfortunate that so far as offences under the said Act are concerned, there should be so much inaction bordering on callousness on the part of the prosecution. Learned Sessions Judge has in his order expressed despair about the prosecution"s conduct. He had called for an explanation but the explanation does not appear to have come. We express our extreme displeasure about this approach of the prosecution. We wonder whether as desired by learned Sessions Judge, the inaction of the prosecution was conveyed to the Chief Secretary. Ultimately, learned Sessions Judge had to discharge the appellant of the said charges because there was no sanction. 10. As stated hereinabove, on 1/4/2008 sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. This court observed that after all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. In our opinion, the appellant cannot draw any support from this judgment because it arose out of a totally different facts scenario. If at all the observations of this court quoted by us would help the prosecution rather than the appellant. No question of sanction was involved in that case. The prosecution and defence had closed their evidence and thereafter at the instance of the prosecution, two of the witnesses who had already been examined, were summoned for the purposes of proving certain documents for prosecution. In the circumstances, the question arose whether by making application under Section 311 of the Code, the prosecution was trying to fill in the lacuna. In our opinion, Rajendra Prasad has no application to the present case. We do not want to express any opinion as to whether in this case, the application was made rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Goa v. Babu Thomas. In that case, the respondent therein was employed as Joint Manager in Goa Shipyard Limited, a Government of India Undertaking under the Ministry of Defence. He was arrested by the CID, Anti-Corruption Bureau of Goa Police on the charge that he demanded and accepted illegal gratification from an attorney of M/s. Tirumalla Services in order to show favour for settlement of wages, bills/arrears certification of pending bills and to show favour in the day-to-day affairs concerning the said contractor. The first sanction to prosecute the respondent was issued by an incompetent authority. The second sanction issued retrospectively after the cognizance was taken was also by an incompetent authority. This court held that when Special Judge took cognizance, there was no sanction under the law authorizing him to take cognizance. This was a fundamental error which invalidated the cognizance as being without jurisdiction. However, having regard to the gravity of the allegations leveled against the respondent, this court permitted the competent authority to issue a fresh sanction order and proceed afresh against the respondent from the stage of taking cognizance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
