The companysent for the prosecution of the respondent was granted by the Additional District Magistrate of the district companycerned and, in this behalf, reliance was placed, on behalf of the appellant, upon a numberification dated 24th April, 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 companyferred under the said Code Criminal Procedure Code or under any other law for the time being in force.
By numberification dated 2nd December, 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.
A charge sheet was filed against him under the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 the said Act .
2000 1 SCR 104 The Order of the Court is as follows Leave granted.
The respondent then filed a revision petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh companytending that the companysent of the Central Government which was requisite under Section 7 of the said Act had number been properly obtained.
The respondent was apprehended on 17th February, 1977 and it is the case of the appellant that detonators were found in his possession.
The High Court accepted the respondents companytention and quashed the proceedings against him.
The power of granting companysent under Section 7 of the said Act rests with the Central Government.
Cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded to some extent.
It is, in our view, number companypetent 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.
The submission on behalf of the appellant is that, by reason of the latter numberification, the power under Section 7 of the said Act delegated by the Central Government to the District Magistrate had number been delegated to the Additional District Magistrate and that, accordingly, the companysent that he granted for the prosecution of the respondent was valid.
The State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal.
The Central Government has delegated it to the District Magistrate.
It is difficult to accept the submission.
