Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 9b explosive act in State vs Jagmohan Singh on 31 July, 2025Matching Fragments
02. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, charge for offences punishable under section 286 IPC and Section 9B Explosives Act was framed upon State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 2/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.31 16:40:04 +0530 every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
18. In the present matter, charge was framed against the accused u/s 9B Explosive Act 1884 read with Section 286 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was found in possession 7470 kilograms of fire crackers (explosives substance) at his firecrackers shop which was beyond the total permitted quantity of 2000 kilograms of his license and the same was in contravention of Explosives Rules, 2008.
20. The foremost question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the possession of alleged fireworks by the accused is actually prohibited under The Explosives Act, 1884. Section 9B of the said Act prohibits possession of explosives in contravention of the rules made under section 5 of the Act or in contravention of the conditions under which the license was granted. The relevant provisions are enunciated below-
21. Punishment for certain offences.--(1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules-
(1) The Central Government may, for any part of India, make rules consistent with this Act to regulate or prohibit, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted as provided by those rules, the manufacture, possession, use, sale, transport, import and export of explosives, or any specified class of explosives.
23. It is an undisputed fact in the present case that accused has a valid license for the sale of firecrackers and explosive substances. As per the license of the accused, at a given point of time, accused could have possessed total 2000 kilograms of fireworks which included 1500 kilograms for sale and 500 kilograms on temporary basis. In this scenario, mere recovery of some firecrackers from the accused would not make the accused liable for the offences u/s 286 IPC and Section 9B Explosives Act. Since accused was a licensed seller of firecrackers, accused would of-course possess the fireworks. The only crux of the State Vs. Jagmohan Singh Page no. 12/19 Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date: