Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this statement the court shall decide the present matter under Section 9-B of the Explosives Act 1884.

State vs Rajesh Khurana U/s. 9B of the Explosives Act

2. The briefly stated prosecution story is that on 29.10.2005 at about 2.30 pm at shop no.1, Mayur Sale Agency, Super Bazar, DDA market, Paschim Vihar, the accused was found in possession of explosives weighing 2145 Kg whereas as per license granted to him, he was permitted to possess explosives only up to 1100 kg. Hence, the accused has contravened the provision of Section 5 of the Explosives Act 1884 and committed an offence under Section 9-B of the Explosives Act. FIR was registered and investigation was carried out.

5. PW-1 HC Anil Kumar has deposed that on 29.10.2005 he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Rakesh and SI Manoj Sharma. At about 2.30 pm, one secret informer met them and gave them an information that excess quantity of fire works were lying at shop no.1, Block A, Paschim Vihar. They all reached the aforesaid shop and checked the license of the shop owner. The license was found to keep only 1100 kg of fire works. All the fireworks were loaded in a tempo and was taken to Dharam Kanta, Rohtak Road, Udyog Nagar. Weight of the crackers were found to be more 1100 Kg. 30 fire-crackers were State vs Rajesh Khurana U/s. 9B of the Explosives Act separated as sample and given serial no.1 to 30. Same were seized and sealed with the seal of MS. The sample crackers were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, they returned to the shop and sealed the shop using three locks. The locks were sealed with the seal of MS. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and sent him to the police station for getting the FIR registered. After getting the FIR registered, the witness came back to the spot and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO prepared the site plan which is Mark X.

14.I have heard the arguments on behalf of the State and the Ld. Counsel for accused and perused the record carefully.

State vs Rajesh Khurana U/s. 9B of the Explosives Act

15.The Counsel for accused has submitted that he has been falsely implicated and is innocent. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that there are various contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. While PW-1 has deposed that he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Rakesh and SI Manoj Sharma, PW-2 has deposed that Ct. Anil had come later on and he was patrolling along with SI Manoj Sharma only. Secondly, PW-1 had deposed that the samples were taken at the Dharam Kanta while PW-2 had deposed that samples were taken at the shop. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that no statement of the driver of the tempo was taken by the IO. He submits that the truck containing crackers was brought from Haryana, hence the number of the truck was 'HR'. He further submits that no receipt for hiring of the said tempo was received. Neither the driver of the tempo nor the owner of the Dharam Kanta were made as witness. He further submits that the coercive steps taken by the police was never seen for any criminal cases. He has further submitted that on the same day FIR No.957/05 under Section 9B of the Explosives Act and Section 286 IPC has been lodged against the same accused on the same day with the same allegations.

28.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered view that the prosecution has sucessfully proved the charges against the accused under Section 9B of the Explosives Act beyond reasonable doubt. It has been proved State vs Rajesh Khurana U/s. 9B of the Explosives Act that on 29.10.2005 the accused Rajesh Khurana was found in possession of 2145 Kg of fire crackers which is beyond the permissible limit of 1100 kg as per the license granted to him. Accordingly, accused Rajesh Khurana stands convicted under Section 9 B of the Explosives Act.