Valid statutory consent for explosive substances prosecution may be filed later, allowing trial to proceed despite earlier omission.

Consent of the competent authority under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is a jurisdictional precondition for trial, and a valid sanction issued later may be placed on record so the prosecution can proceed. The District Magistrate's letter stating that offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 were prima facie made out was held to be good and valid consent, and the Sessions Judge was found to have erred in rejecting it. The later application was treated as one to regularise the record, not to revive a refused prosecution. Delay in obtaining and producing consent was not treated as fatal because no prior refusal had been made and the matter involved a serious incident.

---

---

Issues: Whether the consent granted by the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was valid and sufficient to permit the prosecution to proceed, and whether the trial court could take that consent on record and direct the trial to continue against the accused for offences under that Act.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires consent of the competent authority before a court can proceed to trial for an offence under the Act. The earlier difficulty arose because no consent had been produced when the appellant was discharged from the charges under the Act. Subsequently, the District Magistrate issued a sanction letter stating that the case under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act was prima facie made out and granting sanction under Section 7 for prosecution before the competent court. The Court held that this consent was good and valid, and that the Sessions Judge erred in rejecting it. The Court further held that the prosecution's later application was, in substance, for placing the valid consent on record so that the trial could proceed. The delay in obtaining and producing sanction was not treated as fatal in view of the gravity of the incident and the fact that consent had not been refused at any stage.

Conclusion: The consent under Section 7 was valid, the prosecution was entitled to proceed on that basis, and the trial court was to frame additional charges and continue the trial against the appellant for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where competent authority's consent under a statutory bar to trial is ultimately granted and is otherwise valid, the court may permit the prosecution to place it on record and proceed with the trial, particularly where no prior refusal exists and the defect is jurisdictional rather than substantive.

---