LexDEEPAK KHINCHI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 5 S.C.R. 568 DEEPAK KHINCHI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 719 of 2012) APRIL 30, 2012 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 - Appellant-accused traded in explosive/inflammable C substances - Fire broke out in his shop/ store due to which 14 persons died and several others were injured -Sessions Judge vide order dated 13-9-2007 discharged the appellant of charges under the Act because there was no sanction to prosecute him - Sanction subsequently issued by District o Magistrate, but application by prosecution on that basis for framing charge against the appellant under the Act rejected by the Sessions Judge - Appellant submitted application u/ s.311 CrPC alongwith fresh sanction issued by District Magistrate - Application under s.311 CrPC allowed by E Sessions Judge by order dated 16-11-2010 and trial directed to be proceeded with against the appellant for offences under the Act - Order upheld by High Court - Plea of accused- appellant that by passing order under s.311 of CrPC, the Sessions Judge had subjected him to ordeal of a trial for F offences under the Explosive Substances Act after a period of three years which had resulted in miscarriage of justice - Held: The offence in this case was grave and at no stage, sanction was refused by the competent authority - No case of appellant that sanction was granted by an incompetent G authority - Though proceedings are sought to be initiated under the said Act against the appellant after three years, but, in the facts of this case, where 14 innocent persons lost their lives and several persons were severely injured due to the blast which took place in the appellant's shop, three years H 568 DEEPAK KHINCHI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 569 period cannot be termed as delay - It is also the duty of the A court to see that perpetrators of crime are tried and convicted if offences are proved against them - It cannot be said that the lapse of three years has caused prejudice to the accused - The case will be conducted in accordance with the law and the appellant will have enough opportunity to prove his B innocence - Besides, the victim's rights are equally important- Trial court to frame charges against the appellant under ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act and to proceed with the trial - Criminal Trial. Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - s. 7 - Consent/sanction C to prosecute the accused - Lackadaisical approach of prosecution in obtaining such consent/sanction in the instant case - Deprecated. The accused-appellant traded in explosive/ D inflammable substances. Fire broke out in his shop/store due to which 14 persons died and several others were injured. FIR was registered under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 as well as v.arious offences under the IPC. The Sessions Judge framed E charges against the appellant for offences under the IPC. However, vide order dated 13-09-2007 it discharged the appellant of the charges under the Explosive Substances Act on the ground that no sanction to prosecute him as contemplated in Section 7 of the Act was produced by F the prosecution. Subsequently, sanction was issued by the District Magistrate, but the application made by the prosecution on that basis for framing charge against the appellant under the Explosive Substances Act was rejected by G Sessions Judge vi de order dated 15-05-2010. The appellant submitted application under Section 311 CrPC alongwith a fresh sanction letter dated 1-6-2010 issued by the District Magistrate. The Sessiosn Judge accepted the said fresh sanction and allowing the application under H 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 5 S.C.R. A Section 311 CrPC directed trial to be proceeded with against the appellant for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Expletsive Substances Act. The order was upheld by the High Court. 8 In the instant a1ppeal, the appellant submitted that by passing order under Section 311 of CrPC, the Sessions Judge had subjected the appellant to the ordeal of a trial for offences under the Explosive Substances Act after a period of three years which had resulted in miscarriage C of justice. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The explosion which took place in the appellant's shop resulted in death of 14 persons. Several 0 persons were severely injured. Seriousness of the occurrence can hardly be di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.