Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: explosive rules in State vs . Jai Prakash on 22 August, 2012Matching Fragments
1. The trial relates to section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 read with Rule 113 of the Explosives Rules, 1983. The accused pleaded not guilty.
2. The undisputed facts may be recorded first.
3. Accused Jai Prakash was the holder of the license(Ex. PW4/A) for possession of fire works to the extent of 100 Kg. and Chinese crackers to the extent of 1000 Kg. Constable Yashpal Singh and HC Rajender Singh alongwith SI Noor Mohd.(PW1 to PW3 respectively) seized certain quantity of fire works from the shop of the accused situated at D31, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI on 28.10.05. The identity of the seized fire crackers was also not disputed by the accused.
6. Four specific arguments and counter arguments of the accused and the State may be recorded and decided hereon. I The defence pointed to rule 179 of The Explosive Rules, 1983 which permits search and seizure of any place where explosives are possessed by a police officer of a rank not below that of a Sub Inspector of Police. It was argued that the search and seizure by PW1 & PW2, being constables at the time of the incident, was vitiated as the mandate of rule 179 had not been obeyed. The Ld. Counsel for the accused pointed to the deposition of PW1 to point out that the articles seized had been weighed before the arrival of PW3(Sub Inspector Noor Mohammad). This was referred to as a violation of rule 179.
In response, the Ld. APP submitted that PW2 and PW3 had both asserted that the fire crackers were weighed in the presence of PW3. It was thus argued that the entire search and seizure was within the supervision of PW3.
The court finds rule 179 to be both explicit and mandatory. It is apparent that not only examination of a place but also entry and inspection into the same for search of explosives may be carried out by a police officer of a rank not below that of a Sub Inspector. It is clearly the mandate of this Rule that the very inception of the investigation qua a suspect should be at the hands of such an officer. The rule does not contemplate the joining of a Sub Inspector midway through the entry, inspection or examination of any place where explosives may be possessed. Several pointers have emerged during evidence for the court to conclude that the shop of the accused was entered, inspected and examined by officials below the rank of a Sub Inspector viz PW1 & PW2.