State Of M.P v. Bhupendra Singh ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent was apprehended on 17-02-1977 with detonators alleged to be in his possession. A charge-sheet was filed against him under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (“the Act”). After cognizance was taken and the trial had partly progressed, the respondent moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in revision, arguing that the requisite consent of the Central Government under Section 7 of the Act had not been properly obtained. The High Court accepted this contention and quashed the proceedings. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the consent for prosecution under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, granted by an Additional District Magistrate (ADM), is legally valid when the Central Government had delegated the power only to the District Magistrate (DM).

Whether a State Government notification can lawfully sub-delegate to an ADM a power that the Central Government had already delegated exclusively to the DM.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments (State of Madhya Pradesh)

Relied on a State Government notification dated 24-04-1995 appointing a Joint Collector and Executive Magistrate as ADM for Gwalior with authority to exercise “powers of District Magistrate … under any other law for the time being in force.”

Contended that this notification effectively extended the Central Government’s delegation under Section 7 of the Act to the ADM, rendering the consent for prosecution valid.

Respondent’s Arguments

Asserted that the consent under Section 7 must emanate from the authority expressly designated by the Central Government, namely the DM, and that an ADM lacks such authority.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1969 SC 483; 1969 Cri LJ 803	When the Central Government delegates a power to a District Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate cannot exercise that power merely because he holds the general powers of a DM.	The Court relied on this principle to hold that the ADM could not validly grant consent under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1969 SC 483; 1969 Cri LJ 803

When the Central Government delegates a power to a District Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate cannot exercise that power merely because he holds the general powers of a DM.

The Court relied on this principle to hold that the ADM could not validly grant consent under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court held that although Section 7 requires Central Government consent for prosecution, the Central Government had delegated this specific consent-granting power only to District Magistrates through a notification dated 02-12-1978. The State Government’s later notification of 24-04-1995, which empowered an ADM to exercise all powers of a DM, could not further delegate a power that did not originate from the State but from the Central Government. Relying on Hari Chand Aggarwal, the Court observed that an ADM does not inherit delegated Central Government powers simply by being vested with the general powers of a DM. Consequently, the consent given by the ADM was without authority, and the High Court had rightly quashed the prosecution.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Dismissed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, leaving the quashing of criminal proceedings intact. The ruling underscores that statutory powers delegated by the Central Government cannot be sub-delegated by a State Government unless the parent statute or the Central Government expressly authorises such further delegation. No new precedent was set, but the decision reinforces existing principles governing administrative delegation.

State Of M.P v. Bhupendra Singh .

Order

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent was apprehended on 17-2-1977 and it is the case of the appellant that detonators were found in his possession. A charge-sheet was filed against him under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (“the said Act”). Cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded to some extent. The respondent then filed a revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh contending that the consent of the Central Government which was requisite under Section 7 of the said Act had not been properly obtained. The High Court accepted the respondent's contention and quashed the proceedings against him. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal.

3. For a prosecution under the said Act, the consent of the Central Government is requisite by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 thereof. By notification dated 2-12-1978 the Central Government entrusted to the District Magistrates, inter alia, in the State of Madhya Pradesh its functions under Section 7 of the said Act.

4. The consent for the prosecution of the respondent was granted by the Additional District Magistrate of the district concerned and, in this behalf, reliance was placed, on behalf of the appellant, upon a notification dated 24-4-1995 issued by the appellant whereunder it appointed the Joint Collector and Executive Magistrate as Additional District Magistrate for the district of Gwalior and directed that he should “exercise powers of District Magistrate conferred under the said Code (Criminal Procedure Code) or under any other law for the time being in force”. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that, by reason of the latter notification, the power under Section 7 of the said Act delegated by the Central Government to the District Magistrate had now been delegated to the Additional District Magistrate and that, accordingly, the consent that he granted for the prosecution of the respondent was valid.

5. It is difficult to accept the submission. The power of granting consent under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Central Government. The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate. It is, in our view, not competent for the State Government to further delegate to the Additional District Magistrate a power of the Central Government which the Central Government has delegated to the District Magistrate.

6. The decision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. Batala Engg. Co. Ltd. AIR 1969 SC 483, 1969 Cri LJ 803 is also of some relevance. This Court said that where, by virtue of a notification under Section 20 of the Defence of India Act, the Central Government had delegated its powers under Section 29 to a District Magistrate, an Additional District Magistrate was not competent to requisition property under Section 29 simply because he had been invested with all the powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2).

7. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2000, decided on January 7, 2000

State Of M.P v. Bhupendra Singh .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments (State of Madhya Pradesh)

Respondent’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of M.P v. Bhupendra Singh .

Comments