Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P. versus BHUPENDRA SINGH
- Decided
- 7 January 2000
- Judges listed
- S.P. BHARUCHA, S.S.M. QUADRI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2000] 1 S.C.R. 104 · 2000 INSC 9
- Also cited as
- (2000) 1 SCC 555
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 104, margin F
The respondent was apprehended on 17th February, 1977 and it is the case of the appellant that detonators were found in his possession. A charge sheet was filed against him undtr 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 t:xtent. The respondent then filed a n:vision petition bdore the: High Court of Madhya Pradesh contending that the consent of the Central Government which was rc:quisite under Section 7 of the said Act had not been properly obtaint:d. The High Court accepted the respondc:nt's contention and quashed the proceedings against him. The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal.
pp. 104–105, margin G
For a prosc:cution under the said Act, the consent of the Central Governmt:nt is requisite by virtue of the provisions of Section 7 thereof. By notification dated 2nd Decembt:r, 1978 the Central Government entrusted to District Magistrates, inter alia, in the State of Madhya Pradesh its functions under Section 7 of the said Act.
p. 105, margin B
The const:nt for the prosecution of the respondent was granted by the Additional District Magistrate of the district concerned and, in this bt:half, n.:Jiance was placed, on behalf of the appdlant, upon a notification dated 24th April, 1995 iswed by the appdlant when::undt:r it appointed the joint Colkctor and Executivt: 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 appdlant is that, by reason of the latter notification, the pow<.01 undn Se<.:tion 7 of the said All ddegat<:d by th..: Central Government to the Dist1'..:t Magis!r dle hctd nnw b~en ddegated lo the Additrnnal District Magtstrah: and that, accordingly, the consent that he granted for the prosecution of the respondent was valid.
p. 105, margin C
It is difficult to accept the submission. The power of granting const:nt under St:ction 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.
p. 105, margin E
The dt:cision of this Court in Hari Chand Aggarwal v. The Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., AIR (1969) SC 483 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 powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2)
pp. 105–106, margin G
The appeal fails and is dismissed. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
p. 106, margin A