[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hukum Kuchbandhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2026
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5179
1 CRR-2657-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 20 th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2657 of 2015
HUKUM KUCHBANDHIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Pankaj Raj - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This us revision against the charge.
2. On 19.03.2018, Coordinate Bench dispensed with issuance of notice to
respondent No. 2.
3. On 07.02.2019, it was directed that proceeding of S.T. No.1154/2014
pending before the learned 5th A.S.J., Bhopal between the parties, may go on, but
no final judgement shall be pronounced, meaning thereby that there is a stay on
the pronouncement of judgment.
4. On 07.08.2024, learned counsel for the State was directed to call for the
updated case diary and to collect the information from the Investigating Officer
regarding the sanction.
5. On 29.08.2024, the case diary was not made available.
6. On 21.09.2024, on the prayer of learned Panel Lawyer for the State, the
matter was adjourned. Similarly, on 21.11.2024, learned counsel for the State
again sought time to obtain information from the Investigating Officer regarding
the sanction.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5179
2 CRR-2657-2015
7 . On 03.04.2025, on the prayer of learned counsel for the applicant, the
matter was adjourned.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submitted that the
information/case diary is not available even today. He further submitted that vide
letter dated 26.11.2024, the then learned Government Advocate had
communicated with the concerned authorities and, in response thereof, the T.I.,
P.S. Talaiya, District Bhopal, informed that in Crime No. 307/14 registered under
Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Act, the requisite sanction has not been received.
9. It appears that the then learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State had communicated a wrong letter to the concerned T.I., which is
very unfortunate. The memo issued by the office of the Advocate General refers to
sanction under Section 3/5 of the Explosives Act. It further appears that the
learned Government Advocate failed to verify the provisions under which the
charges were actually framed, as the charge was not framed under Sections 3/5 of
the Explosive Act but under Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Be it
placed on record that both Acts are different. Likewise, even the T.I., P.S.
Talaiya, District Bhopal, did not take due care to examine the case diary to
ascertain the provisions under which the charge sheet was filed.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge‑sheet,
registered at Police Station Talaiya, District Bhopal under Sections 3/5 of the
Explosive Act, was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, but
vide order dated 28.07.2015 passed in S.T. No.1154/2014 by the learned 5th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, charges were framed under Sections 3/5 of the
Explosive Substances Act. Therefore, the present revision has been preferred.
11. Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 clearly stipulates as
under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5179
3 CRR-2657-2015
"no Court shall proceed with the trial of any person for an offence under the
said Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate."
12. Upon consideration of the above submissions and on perusal of the
record, it is observed that the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, District
Bhopal, in the relevant order‑sheet dated 28.07.2015, recorded that offences under
Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act were made out, however, charges
were framed under Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Act.
13. It is observed that while the order sheet records that charges under
Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Act were being framed, the charge‑sheet refers to
the Explosive Substances Act. In view of aforesaid, the intention of the Court
while framing the charges is not clear. Consequently, the charges framed under
the aforesaid sections, order dated 28.07.2015 passed in S.T. No.1154/2014 by the
learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal are hereby quashed.
14. The matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to
hear learned counsel for both the parties afresh and thereafter frame proper
charges in accordance with law.
15. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of .
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
NRJ
