Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act provides punishment for making attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping explosives with intent to endanger life or property. Section 5 of the said Act states that if a person makes or knowingly possesses with him or under his control any explosive substance or special category of explosive substance giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not possess it with him or his control for a lawful object is liable to punishment unless he is able to show that his possession of the explosive substance is for lawful object. Section 6 of the said Act is to punish a person who procures, counsels, aids, abets, the commission of any offence under this Act by supply of the materials

- 34 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39826-DB

33. PW24 has given evidence for according sanction to prosecute the accused under the Arms Act. He has stated about giving permission to file charge sheet for the offences under Explosive Substances Act. PW24 being the Commissioner of Police for Bengaluru City had the powers of District Magistrate. Section 39 of the Arms Act contemplates previous sanction by the District Magistrate, and section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act requires consent to be given by the District Magistrate for trial of a person for the offences under this Act. Both these requirements are met with. Ex.P32 is the sanction order under the Arms Act. PW24 has stated to have given permission to PW21 on 04.10.2012 to file charge sheet for the offences under Explosive Substances Act. The evidence of PW24 to this extent has not been assailed.

- 35 -

NC: 2024:KHC:39826-DB

34. Therefore from the above discussion what transpires is that the conviction judgment requires to be modified. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are to be acquitted in entirety. And accused No.1 can be convicted only for the offences under sections 25(1B) and 26 of the Arms Act and sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He deserves to be acquitted of the offences under sections 120B and 122 of IPC and sections 13, 17, 18 of UA(P)A and section 6 of Explosive Substances Act. The sentence imposed on him also requires modification for the offence under section 25 of the Arms Act. Since his act would fall under section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, the maximum sentence that could be imposed in accordance with law as applicable on the date of incident was three years imprisonment and fine, not seven years as has been held by the trial court. The sentence imposed on him for the offence under section 26 of the Arms Act and section 4 and section 5 of the

(iii) Impugned judgment is modified as below:

(a) Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences under sections 120B and 122 of IPC, offences under sections 13, 17 and 18 of UA(P)A and section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.

(b) Conviction of accused No.1 for offences under sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act and sections 4 and 5 of

- 37 -

                                     NC: 2024:KHC:39826-DB






the     Explosive          Substances Act      is
confirmed.          But         sentence           under