Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

107.The report Ex.PW5/A qua the claimed Explosive Material is found to be very cryptic as all it contained is that "Physico­Chemical and TLC Test confirmed the presence of CE based High Explosive" . Firstly this one line report does not contain the purity percentage in so far as it only reveals "presence of explosive in sample" which definitely leaves a scope of presence of other non explosive contents as well. Even the expertise of PW5 appears to be under cloud in so far as he was not even aware that Part I, Schedule I of Explosive Rules'2008 divides Explosives into 8 different Classes. The said Expert was not even aware that as per Rule 5 Under Explosive Rules'2008, according to the risks posed by the Explosive , they are divided into 4 categories Page 42 / 53 of Judgment State Vs. Mohd. Mukhtar dt 21.4.2012 namely Category X, Category Y, Category Z and Category ZZ. Upon being asked in his cross examination , he gave a plain reply that as per his knowledge explosives are only two types namely Low Explosive and High Explosive.

110.In case titled Hazi Mohd. Ekramul Haq Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488, Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled:

" Opinion of an Expert unsupported by reasons is unreliable."

111.Further more, Rule 6 of Explosive Rules'2008 provides that in order to Manufacture, Import, Export, Transport, Possess sell or use any explosive , an applicant is supposed to submit detailed application explaining the nature of the explosive and the Chief Controller may seek samples thereof for its testing at Departmental Testing Stations. The test through which the explosive samples undergo are also enumerated in Rule 6 (7)

(ii) of Explosive Rules '2008 which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

runs as under:

112.Rule 6 (7) (ii) of Explosive Rules'2008 (7) (i) Sample forwarded under sub­rule (4) shall be subjected to such of the tests enumerated in clause

(ii) of this sub­rule are as necessary having regard to the nature and type of explosive submitted to ensure that the explosive is capable of being safely manufactured, handled, stored transported and used.

120.It is argued that the sanction in this case has been granted by PW6 Sh. Rakesh Bihari, Page 48 / 53 of Judgment State Vs. Mohd. Mukhtar dt 21.4.2012 Principal Secretary ­cum­Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) and he is not covered under the term "District Magistrate". It is argued that this terms is not defined under Explosive Substance Act or even the rule. However, this term does stand defined in Section 4 (c) of Explosive Act'1884, a statute which was supplemented by the Explosive Substances Act'1908.