Restriction on trial of offences

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Deepak Khinchi vs State of Rajasthan

   Supreme Court of India 30 Apr 2012 Persuasive (Other HC) - Supreme Court Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When mandatory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is not obtained at the outset and the accused is discharged for that reason, the prosecution must be quashed. However, it is open to the prosecution to initiate fresh prosecution after obtaining valid sanction from the competent authority (District Magistrate post-amendment). A delay in obtaining such sanction, even of several years, does not bar subsequent prosecution if: (a) the sanctioning authority is competent; (b) sanction was never refused by the competent authority; (c) the offence is grave involving significant loss of life and property; and (d) the accused is afforded full opportunity to defend himself. The trial court may accept such retrospectively obtained sanction and proceed with trial, balancing the rights of the accused against the rights of victims and the administration of justice.

   On this section: Core provision requiring that no court shall proceed to trial of any person for an offence against the Act except with the consent of the competent authority (originally Central Government, amended to District Magistrate by Act 54 of 2001). The Court extensively analyzed whether this sanction could be obtained retrospectively and whether its absence prevents trial permanently or merely requires fresh prosecution.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan

   Supreme Court of India 09 May 2014 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.

   On this section: Requirement of consent from District Magistrate for trial of persons for offenses under the Act

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.