Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

http://www.judis.nic.in

14.Yet another ground raised on the side of the petitioner in support of the relief sought for herein is that the seizure of Ammonium nitrate from the shed in question on 8.6.2012 will not attract any offence for the simple reason that Ammonium nitrate was notified as explosive with effect from 21.7.2011, only through notification dated 21.12.2012 and as on the date of seizure of the explosives, the same is not explosive and the possession of the same will not amount to any offence. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of such contention cited the judgment of this Court reported in 2013-2-LW (Crl) 554 (V.Sekar v. the State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vellore North Police Station, Vellore). The case cited before this court, arises out of the order, refusing to return of 554 bags of Ammonium nitrate belonging to the petitioner therein. The learned brother judge in para 6 of the judgment referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in CDJ 2010 APHC 279 (O.Sudheer Reddy and another v. State by Sub Inspector of Police), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court quashed the FIR relating to possession of explosives, for the offence under Section 9B of the Explosives Act 1884 on the ground that the Ammonium nitrate is not an explosive and the Ammonium Nitrate is meant for the purpose of using the same in blasting boulders in stone crushers and end user of Ammonium Nitrate is not material and the possession of Ammonium Nitrate simplicitor without licence is not an offence. Following the same, the learned brother judge allowed the revision petition and http://www.judis.nic.in ordered return of Ammonium Nitrate to the petitioner therein.”

8.The next judgment of Andra Pradesh High Court in O.Sudheer Reddy & Another Versus State, by Sub Inspector of Police, Talupula Police Station reported in CDJ 2010 APHC 279, the relevant portions are as follows:

“The question is whether possession of Ammonium Nitrate without licence under the Explosives Act attracts liability under Section 9B of the said Act. According to the petitioner's counsel, Ammonium Nitrate though an essential item in the explosion process along with other chemicals, Ammonium Nitrate by itself is not an explosive material and that it is not a notified material under the Explosives Act requiring licence for possession thereof. The petitioners filed copy of letter addressed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Hyderabad working in the department of Explosives, Government of India dated 12.06.2003. The said letter was addressed to one M.Jaya Ramulu of Ananthapur. In that letter, the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Hyderabad informed the addressee that storage, sale and transportation etc., of Ammonium Nitrate do not attract provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the rules framed there under and that hence, no licence is obligatory for the same under the said rules.
Further, this Court in order dated 07.07.2008 http://www.judis.nic.in in Criminal Petition No.3565 of 2008 quashed FIR relating to offence punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act on the ground that the then Public Prosecutor after obtaining instructions reported before the Court that Ammonium Nitrate is not an explosive.
Now it is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that though Ammonium Nitrate is not an explosive, in this case, the said Ammonium Nitrate is meant for the purpose of using the same in blasting boulders in stone crushers. End user of Ammonium Nitrate is not material in this case. The only simple question here is whether possession of Ammonium Nitrate simplicitor without licence is an offence. Having regard to above discussion of the subject, inevitable answer for the said question is in the negative.
Hence, the petition is allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.17 of 2010 of Talupula Police Station, Anantapur District relating to offence under Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884.”

9.The third judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Sharad Kumar Agrawal Versus State of M.P., reported in CDJ 2014 MPHC 508, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: