Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7.3 Ld. Counsel for accused person has submitted that even if believing the story of prosecution is true then at the most the possession of explosives has to be dealt only under Section 9B of Explosives Act, 1884 and under which the possession is punishable at the most for a period of two years or with fine or with both. It is submitted that against accused Khem Prasad and accused Purshottam Lal Section 9B of Explosives Act, 1884 is not applicable as they were not found in the possession of said explosives. The relevant section is reproduced hereasunder:

Section 9B in The Explosives Act, 1884 9B Punishment for certain offences. -- 1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules--
(a) manufactures, imports or exports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;

22.2 It was held in case titled Kamal Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand 2013 SCC Online Jhar 582 by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand that detonator is an explosive in terms of Section 4(b) of the Explosive Act, 1884 and its possession is punishable under Section 9B(i)

(b) of the Explosive Act, 1884 and it does not comes under Explosive Substances Act. Reliance was placed on case titled Lopchand Naruji Jat & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) to make a substance as explosive substance the material/machine/apparatus must itself be sufficient to cause explosion. If it is a device used to trigger an explosive device and itself not sufficient to cause explosion counting separately then it comes under the category of explosive defined under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Act, 1884 and not under Explosives Substances Act, 1908. The relevant para are reproduced hereasunder:

23. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove abetment under Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 r/w Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 caused by accused Purshottam Lal Mehta. In fact even the possession of detonators with accused Khem Prasad and Purshottam Lal Mehta is NOT proved in any manner and in absence which Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 cannot be held to be proved against both the accused person in view of discussion held above. Hence accused Purshottam Lal Mehta is acquitted for the offence under Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 r/w Section 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Since the possession is also not proved with any of the accused namely accused Khem Prasad and accused Purshottam and therefore it is held that Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 is also held not proved against the accused Khem Prasad and accused Purshottam Lal Mehta. Hence it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused Khem Prasad and accused Purshottam Lal Mehta and hence both the accused Khem Prasad and accused Purshottam Lal Mehta stands acquitted of the charge levied against them. Their earlier personal bond are cancelled and surety are discharged and documents, if any, be returned to the surety and endorsement on security documents is allowed to be de-endorsed. In terms of Section 437A Cr. PC, accused have furnished their bail bonds as directed which will be in force for period of six months from the date of this judgment. Case property be confiscated to the State.