Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajab Ali vs State on 3 October, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2438 / 2014
Rajab Ali S/o Mohammed Umar, by caste Muslim, R/o Kunj Gali,
Vyapariyon Ka Mohalla, Near Masjid, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 03/10/2017
1. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur in FIR No.56/2014 registered at Police Station Soorsagar in Criminal Original Case No.2012/2014 by taking the cognizance on 19.09.2014 under Sections 286 & 336 IPC.
2. The allegation is that while an investigation was conducted by the ATS Rajasthan, Jaipur, Camp Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Act and Section 286 & 336 of IPC were being investigated finally against the petitioner, a charge sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 286 & 336 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner is a license holder and was (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2438/2014] authorized to deal with the business of explosive and was not involved in the actual incident. It is submitted that only allegation against the petitioner is that he was having his own license and his brother is also holding the same license and certain material from his shop were sold in violation of the conditions of the license granted by the District Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the cognizance order was bad in the eye of law as the explosive act has not been invoked at all against the petitioner and the total charge against the present petitioner was that he received amount from the servant of his brother who was independent license holder and the petitioner was only being a support system and independent license holder could not be made responsible for such an act.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court towards the charge sheet and has shown a conclusion of the investigation in which the offences under Sections 286 & 336 of IPC have been proved.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor further stated that the confiscation of Section 77.28 kg of gun powder, 200 detonators and red fuse wire to the length of 572 feet was unlawful and though they were license holders but they were not entitled to trade these explosives.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has also shown the statement of Ashish Prabhakar and Sunil Prasad Sharma and from (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2438/2014] bare reading of the statements, prima facie offence against the present petitioner is made out.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the ingredients of offence under Section 286 & 336 of IPC are not made out.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie on bare reading of the charge sheet and a conjoint reading of Sections 286 & 336 IPC alongwith present record prima facie indicates that the cognizance order is not bad in the eye of law.
10. Section 286 & Section 336 of IPC read as under:
"286. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance.--Whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.--Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both."
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-2438/2014]
11. The transaction in which money was received so as to supply the gun powder and fuse clearly indicates the receipt of money by the present petitioner and thus, it cannot be said at this stage under the constrained jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. that the act of which one component of selling of explosives would not have endangered personal safety of others or did not come within the ambit of negligent conduct. The amount received by the present petitioner as alleged is not for some vegetables or edible oil but for explosive which have been allegedly supplied to the persons for wrong reasons.
12. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus, the impugned order of taking cognizance does not call for grant of any indulgence.
13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. zeeshan/