Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

State Of Jharkhand Through The Deputy ... vs Md.Nasrullah @ Nanhe on 14 March, 2012

Author: Prashant Kumar

Bench: Prashant Kumar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         Cr. Revision No. 553 of 2010

           The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner,
           Koderma                              ...   ....Petitioner

                               Vs.

           Md. Nasrullah @ Nanhe               ....Opposite Party

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR

           For the Petitioner:            Mr. Krishan Shankar, APP
           For the Opposite Party:        Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad


6/14.03.2012

: This revision is directed against the order dated 26.02.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Koderma whereby he discharged the opposite party under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. by holding that the Ammonium Nitrate is not an explosive substance, therefore, no offence under section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act is made out.

It is submitted by Sri Krishan Shankar , that the Govt. of India vide notification as contained in SO No. 2899 (E) dated 15 th December, 2008 had declared that Ammonium Nitrate is an explosive substance. Thus, the finding of the court below is erroneous, hence liable to be set aside.

Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of impugned order, I find that the court below after considering the latter of Govt. of India dated 13.12.2000 had concluded that Ammonium Nitrate is not an explosive substance and no license required under the Explosive Act and/or Explosive Substance Act. It is not out of place to mention that in the instant case the alleged articles were seized on 13.12.2006, thus in the instant case, Annexure- 3 has no application because the same was not in existence on the date of seizure.

In that view of the matter, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.

Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed.

( Prashant Kumar,J.) Sharda/-