Delhi District Court
State vs . Munna Lal on 8 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAGANDEEP SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DELHI
FIR NO: 524/04
U/S: 286 IPC r/w Section 9B of Explosive Act
P.S:TIMAR PUR
STATE VS. MUNNA LAL
:JUDGMENT:
Sl. No. of the case 1385/2
Date of commission of offence 10.11.2004
Name of the complainant ASI Ved Raj
Police Station
Timar Pur, Delhi.
Name, parentage and address Munna Lal
of the accused. S/o Sh Ram Govind Gupta
R/o Gali No. 8A,
Kaushik Enclave, Burari
Delhi.
Offence complained off U/s 286 IPC r/w Section
9 B of Explosive Act
FIR No. 524/04 1/7
STATE VS. MUNNA LAL
Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Acquitted
Date of order 08.01.2013
Date of final arguments heard 08.01.2013
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :
1. The facts of the case in brief are that on 10.11.2004 at about 09:30 pm, at main road Nathupura, 19/22 plot No. 1, Amrit Vihar, Burari Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station Timar Pur, the accused was found in possession explosive substance/ crackers items i.e Anar, Bomb, Rocket, Phooljhari, etc weighing about 30 kg., without any license. He also omitted to take such care as is sufficient to guard against the probable danger to human life from the said explosive substance so as to endanger human life. The accused Munna Lal was thereby booked for the offence punishable u/s 286 IPC r/w Section 9 B of Explosive Act 1984.
2. That after completion of investigation the challan against the accused was filed on 16.12.2005 and accused was summoned. The charge u/sec 286 IPC r/w section 9 (B) of Explosives Act was framed against accused on 03.08.2007 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed FIR No. 524/04 2/7 STATE VS. MUNNA LAL trial.
3. That in order to prove their case the prosecution has examined three witnesses in the present case.
4. The PW1 SI Rajender Singh is the duty officer. He deposed that on 10.11.2004 he received a rukka and on the basis of which he registered FIR which is Ex PW 1/A.
5. The PW 2 HC Rajender Singh is the recovery witness. He has deposed that on 10.11.2004 he alongwith ASI Ved Raj Rani were on patrolling duty in the area of Amrit Vihar Burari. At about 09:00 pm ASI received one secret information that one person is selling crackers illegally in the area at shop No 19/22, Amrit Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter IO requested 34 passerby to join the proceedings but none had agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter he alongwith ASI raided the shop of accused. The shop was open at that point of time. There they found the crackers of various type which were found to be approximately 30 kgs. Some of the crackers were separated for sample and remaining put in to the sack and sealed the seal of VR. The CFSL form was filled at the spot. The seal after use was handed over to him. The case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex PW 2/A. Thereafter IO prepared tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of case. Thereafter accused was arrested by the IO vide memo Ex PW 2/B and got the accused personally searched vide memo Ex PW 2/C. Thereafter he FIR No. 524/04 3/7 STATE VS. MUNNA LAL alongwith IO returned at the PS alongwith case property and case property was deposited the same in the Malkhana.
6. The PW 3 HC Prem Chand is the MHC (M). He has deposed that on 10.11.2004 IO ASI Dev Raj deposited case property in the Malkhana which was sealed with the seal of VR which was entered in to the register No. 19 vide serial No 3581. The photocopy of which is Ex PW 3/A.
7. That on 25.05.2012 the prosecution evidence was closed as the matter was since pending since 2007 and prosecution failed to produce all the material witnesses despite number of opportunities. That on 06.07.2012 after the conclusion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused namely Munna Lal u/s 281 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused denied all the allegations which has been levelled against him. The defence evidence was not led by the accused.
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Sh Mahender Sharma Ld. counsel for accused and gone through the record.
9. The first allegation allegation which has been levelled against the accused is that the accused was selling the fire crackers without taking necessary precautions while dealing combustible material. That only one recovery witness has been examined and CFSL report regarding fire crackers was never filed by the Investigation Authority. Thus it has not been proved that the articles which were recovered FIR No. 524/04 4/7 STATE VS. MUNNA LAL were indeed fire crackers as defined in Explosive Act.
10.The PW2 merely stated that the accused was not having any mechanism to extinguish any fire. That apart from this allegation there is no other circumstances which proves the ingredient of section 286 IPC. The essential ingredient of section 286 IPC is the rash and negligent act while dealing with explosives substances. The term rash and negligent act in the context of driving of vehicle has been interpreted as acting without due care and caution and being oblivious of the consequences of the act. To support this view I am guided by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2001 (2) MWN (Cr.) SC 77 : (2000 Cri LJ 3508) (Mohammed Aynuddina alias Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh). In the present in hand the only allegation as per the statement of witness namely PW 2 HC Rajinder Singh is that the accused was found selling fire crackers without having valid license for the same. That apart from this no other circumstance has been proved which could show lack of care and caution while dealing with crackers. Thus mere non possession of license for selling the fire crackers can not be termed as rash and negligent act while dealing withe explosive substances. In this circumstances no offence under section 286 IPC is made out against the accused.
11.The second allegation which has been leveled against the accused is the possession of fire crackers without any valid license issued by competent authority which is punishable under section 9 B of Explosive Act. The rule 128, of Explosive rules 2008 framed under the FIR No. 524/04 5/7 STATE VS. MUNNA LAL Explosive Act, specifically authorizes police officials not below the rank of Sub Inspector to search and seize the articles under the act. In the present case in hand admittedly the seizure of fire crackers has been done by ASI Ved Raj. Thus the seizure itself become illegal and inadmissible in evidence. To support this view I am guided by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1194 CRI. L. J. 3702 (State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh). Even otherwise for the want of FSL report it cannot be presumed that the articles seized were explosives as defined in section 4 (d) of Act.
12.In view of the above stated reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge its burden of proving the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the same, accused Munna Lal is acquitted u/s 286 IPC r/w section 9B of Explosive Act. Bail bond and surety bond stands discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court)
Dated: 08.01.2013 (GAGANDEEP SINGH)
MM01/NORTH
TIS HAZARI : DELHI
FIR No. 524/04 6/7
STATE VS. MUNNA LAL
CC/FIR No. 524/04
P.S. TIMAR PUR
STATE VS. MUNNA LAL
08.01.2013
Present: Ld. APP Sh. Manan Munjal for the State.
Accused in person with Ld. counsel Sh Mahender Sharma. Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate detailed judgment of the even date the accused is acquitted for the offence u/s 286 IPC r/w Section 9 B of Explosive Act. Accused wishes to adopt bail bond and surety bond. Previous bail bond and surety bond stands adopted for the purpose of Section 437A of Cr.PC. They shall remain valid for period of six months from today. Original documents returned as per rules.
File be consigned to record room.
(GAGANDEEP SINGH) MM01/NORTH DELHI 08.01.2013 FIR No. 524/04 7/7 STATE VS. MUNNA LAL FIR No. 524/04 8/7 STATE VS. MUNNA LAL