Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In addition to all these, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act. Section 447 IPC says about the punishment for criminal trespass. The criminal trespass defined in Section 441 IPC. Section 441 IPC says whoever enters into or upon the property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully, remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass." No prosecution witness has got a case that the appellants, in this case, committed criminal trespass. The only evidence adduced by the prosecution is that there is a motive to the accused against the defacto complainant. Even if the prosecution can prove the motive without any corroborating evidence, there cannot be a conviction under Section 447 IPC. Moreover, the conviction under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act is also not maintainable. Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act deals with the punishment for causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property. Section 7 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, says that no court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the District Magistrate's consent. When Section 7 of the Act clearly says that only the District Magistrate can give consent for prosecution, the Additional Magistrate cannot issue such a consent order. This point is considered by this Court and the Apex Court in Nadukandy Bijukumar & others v. State of Kerala and others (2018(3) KHC 839 and State of M.P v. Bhupendra Singh (2000(1) SCC 555). Therefore, the prosecution under Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act is also not maintainable.