Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: explosive substance act amendment in The State Represented By vs Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa on 23 October, 2025Matching Fragments
3. The DSP subsequently lodged a complaint at Batlagundu Police Station, where a case was registered in Crime No. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:27:49 pm ) 240/2013 against the respondent/accused along with two other co- accused. After completing the investigation, a final report was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 353, 307, and 153(A) of the IPC, Section 16(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 4(a)(i) and 4(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the same was taken on file in PRC.No.19/2014. After completing the formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, since the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, took the case on file in S.C.No.131/2014 and framed the charges for the commission of offences under Sections 353, 307, 153(A) of IPC, 16(1)(b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(ii) of Explosive Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001. In order to substantiate the case during trial, on the side of the prosecution, totally 21 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW21 and 31 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to Ex.P31, besides 7 material objects were exhibited as MO1 to MO7. No oral and documentary evidence were let in on the side of the respondent/accused. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution side witnesses, the respondent/accused was questioned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 01:27:49 pm ) under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution witnesses and he denied it as false. On conclusion of the trial and hearing of the arguments on either side, the trial Court by impugned judgment dated 20.12.2018, acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges. Aggrieved over the acquittal, the prosecution has filed the present appeal before this Court.