B.J. Shethna, J.
1. It is stated in this present petition by the petitioner that on 5.5.1999 when the van of respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand Jhanwar carrying explosive substance in a huge quantity being unloaded in 'Nohra' of respondent No.2, at that time due to explosion two persons, Bheru and Sattar Khan received serious injuries. Out of them Bheru later on sccumbed to the injuries. The information about this incident was received by Shahpura, Police Station and on receiving the said information,' ASI Aziz Mohd. reached the place of incident and lodged FIR No. 107/99 with Shahpura Police Station for the offences punishable Under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and also Under Sections 286, 337, 338 IPC. However, SHO Madan Dan Singh investigated the case and filed challan Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884 against respondents No.2 and 3 accused and also for the offence Under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304A IPC Accordingly, the learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. The present petitioner, who claims to be a public spirited man of that area, first approached this Court by way of a public interest litigation petition No. 2839/1999 as he apprehended that SHO Madandan Singh, who was investigating the case only with a view to favour the respondent No. 2 may file case against them for the offence Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act, 1884 which is a bailable offence and not Under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, for which life imprisonment is provided Under Section 3 of the said Act. After issuing notice in that petition and hearing all the learned Counsel for the parties the Division Bench of this Court headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice disposed of the said writ petition on 8th March, 2001 with certain observations. During the pendency of that writ petition, the present petitioner has filed this petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and challenged the impugned order dated 7.1.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura of District Bhilwara in Criminal Original Case No. 219/1999 rejecting his application for taking cognizance against both the respondents No.2 and 3 accused for the offences Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
3. Learned Counsel Shri Manish Shishodiya appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this petition on the ground that petitioner had no locus standi to file such petition because he had no locus standi to file application for taking cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the trial court also and trial court, therefore, rightly rejected that application. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri R.K. Soni has also raised this very objection regarding the maintainability of this petition on the ground of locus standi of the petitioner.
4. In my considered opinion, the preliminary objection regarding locus standi of the petitioner has to be accepted because petitioner had no locus to file this petition. Merely because his application was rejected that would not entitle him to file such petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. In fact, the petitioner had no locus standi to file such application before the learned trial court asking the trial court to take cognizance for the offence Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act also.
5. I must also state that learned Public Prosecutor Shri R.K. Soni has produced a copy of a letter dated 4.11.1999 which is a history sheet of the present petitioner which shows that from the period 1977 till 1988 i.e. for a period of 11 years as many as 13 cases were registered against the present petitioner. Some of them were disposed of by way of compromise and some of them are pending trial. When this was pointed out by Mr. Soni then it was submitted by Mr. Sandeep Mehta for the petitioner that merely because some cases were filed against the present petitioner under the various provisions of I.P.C. that does not mean that he can be prevented from filing petition Or atleast bringing to the notice of the Court about the mis-deeds of respondents No.2 and 3. However, when I am of the opinion that the petitioner had no locus standi then I would not like to express any view on this.
6. At this stage, it was submitted by learned Counsel Shri Sandeep Mehta for the petitioner that this Court should exercise its suo moto revisional powers against the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and quash the same in large public interest. It is true that this Court has wide powers Under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. P.C. but, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to exercise it because after rejection of the application on 7.1.2000 the learned trial Judge has already framed the charges against the accused on 10.1.2000 for the offences punishable Under Sections 5A and 9B of the Explosive Act and also Under Sections 286, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. When this was pointed to Mr. Mehta for the petitioner then he requested this Court to consider the statement/dying declaration of the deceased Bheru and another witness Bhanwar Lal and huge quantity of explosive substance was there in the case for adding the charge against the respondents accused Under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. According to him the trial court should have framed charge against the respondents No. 2 and 3 for the offence Under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and not Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act because huge quantity of explosive substance was found and in support of his submission he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar and another v. State of Maharashtra reported in : 1981CriLJ588 . I am afraid, this submission Mr. Mehta cannot be accepted by this Court at this stage because it is the prerogative of the trial court to add or alter the charge at any time during the trial as provided Under Section 216 Cr. P.C. The record was called for in this case, therefore, I have gone through the said record which contains statements/dying declaration of deceased Bheru and Bhanwar Lal also. But, I do riot want to express any opinion at this stage in this matter as to whether prima facie the offence Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act is made out against the respondents No. 2 and 3 or offence Under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act is made out against the respondents No. 2 and 3 because the trial court is bound to swayed away with such opinion. But, I am sure that after the record is send back and it is received by the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall definitely go into the entire record and decide on his own as to whether prima facie offence Under Section 9B of the Explosive Act is made out or offence Under Section 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act is made out against the respondents No.2 and 3. After going through the record and the statements of the witnesses, if the learned trial Judge is satisfied, then I am sure that he will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
7. Before parting I must state that the attitude of learned APP before the trial court at the time of hearing of the application submitted by the petitioner was not at all good and it is required to be condemned in strongest words. It is true that present petitioner has directly submitted the application before the learned trial Judge, but that is no ground for the learned APP to leave the field and ran away like this in such a sensitive matter. He could have very much taken the objection which has been taken here in petition by the learned Public Prosecutor about his locus standi The Public Prosecutors are there to assist the court and not to take such a stand that he was not given and not to take such a stand that he was not given copy of the application, therefore, he would not address the court. The public prosecutors are there to assist the court for the administration of proper and better justice.
8. With these observations, this petition is disposed of. The record shall now be sent back to the learned trial court immediately. As directed earlier, the learned trial court shall now decide as to whether the charge against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 accused can be added or altered or not?