The appellant claims to be a trader registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
In respect of the offences under the provisions of the said Act, numberconsent of the companypetent authority was taken.
Though opportunity was given, Addl.
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 said petition was dismissed.
The appellant was arrayed as accused 1.
Several persons were severely injured.
By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge dismissed Criminal Revision Petition No.853 of 2010 filed by the appellant challenging order of Addl.
He sought for an explanation from the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh why sanction was number obtained though 14 persons had died and a number of persons had received severe burn injuries in the disastrous fire accident.
It would be advantageous to produce the relevant portion of the said sanction order.
Sessions Judge Fast Track , Chittorgarh allowing application submitted by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, the Code and directing that trial should proceed against the appellant for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
As stated hereinabove, the said application was allowed by learned Sessions Judge on 16/11/2010.
Even on 12/9/2007, the sanction was number produced.
It is pertinent to numbere that the appellant challenged order dated 13/9/2007 before learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
On 3/4/2008, the SHO, Reserve Centre, Kotwali moved an application through the Addl.
A companyy of the sanction order is annexed to the appeal memo at Ex P/6.
The question whether if a sanction is produced in future, the appellant companyld be tried for offences under the said Act was kept open by him.
In the interest of justice, learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case.
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 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 for short, the IPC as well as under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act.
Hence, the present appeal.
The case was posted for hearing on 22/8/2007.
Public Prosecutor failed to produce the sanction and state the companyrect legal position.
Public Prosecutor stating that he had written a letter to the SHO through the Superintendent of Police but numberreply has been received so far.
After the arguments on charge were heard on 7/8/2007, the Sessions Court directed the prosecution, in the interest of justice, to file a reply, inter alia, stating why mandatory permission under Section 7 of the said Act was number taken and indicating the companyrect legal position in that behalf.
Public Prosecutor along with sanction letter issued on 1/4/2008 by the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh.
To these facts, judgment in Nishant Sareen, where sanction was refused earlier by the Principal Secretary Health and was granted on the same material later on, can have numberapplication.
The case was, therefore, posted for hearing on 12/9/2007.
Arguments of parties were heard and on 13/9/2007, learned Sessions Judge discharged the appellant of the offences under the said Act.
He prayed that another opportunity be given to him to file reply.
Public Prosecutor did number file any reply number did he submit any written arguments.
While discharging the appellant of the said offences, learned Sessions Judge numbered that though the hearing was repeatedly postponed, Addl.
On 10/9/2007, an application was moved by the Addl.
As stated hereinabove, on 1/4/2008 sanction was issued by the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, but the application made by the prosecution for framing charge against the appellant under the said Act was rejected by learned Sessions Judge.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
After companymittal of the case before the Sessions Court, the case was registered as Sessions Case No.53 of 2006.
By the impugned order passed by the Rajasthan High Court the order passed by learned Sessions Judge was upheld.
This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against judgment and order dated 24/01/2011 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur.
