Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: explosive rules in The State vs Ismail Shakur Morani on 12 February, 1957Matching Fragments
1. This is an appeal by the State of Bombay from a judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, acquitting the respondent Ismail Shakur Morani who was charged with having committed an offence under Section 5(3) of the Indian Explosive Act read with Rule 81 of the Explosive Rules, 1940.
2. On the 24th August, 1954 an explosion occurred in the Morani Fire Works at Andheri. Nineteen lives were lost as a result of the explosion. Several workers received injuries. One Nam-deo Dharma was also injured and his right leg had to be amputed. The respondent is the owner of this factory. He possessed two licences under the Indian Explosives Act. In this case we are concerned only with one of those licences. It was a licence for manufacturing, possessing and selling 200 lbs. of fire works at a time. This licence was dated the 12th May, 1947. It was renewable annually and it was valid up to the 31st March, 1955. In this case we are concerned with condition No. 11 of the licence, as the case of the State is that it was this condition whose provisions were contravened by the respondent. Now, condition No. 11 lays down :
"Not more than four persons shall be allowed at any one time in any one building or tent in which the explosive is being manufactured and only persons actually employed in manufacturing or superintending manufacture shall be allowed inside the place of manufacture."
It is the contention of the State that on the 24th August, 1954, upon which date the explosion took place, at least five persons were working in manufacturing shed No. 2 situated upon the licensed premises. It is upon this contention that the State alleges that the respondent was guilty of having contravened the provisions of condition No. 11 and thereby having committed an offence under Section 5(3) of the Indian Explosives Act read with Rule 81 of the Explosives Rules, 1940.
3. Before proceeding to deal with the facts of the case, I may conveniently set out at this stage the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Indian Explosive Act, 1884. Sub-section (3) is a penal section and it provides, so far as is material to the present case, that a person who manufactures an explosive in contravention of the rules made under Section 5 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 Rule 81 of the Explosives Rules, 1940 provides:
21. For the reasons stated above, we cannot accept the contention of Mr. Mistry that the respondent cannot be convicted of an offence under Section 5(3) of the Act, unless the prosecution establishes that he had an intention to commit a breach of Rule 81 of the Explosives Rules, 1940, read with condition No. 11 of the licence.
22. The result, therefore, is that the appeal filed by the State of Bombay will be allowed and the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent will be set aside. We convict the respondent under Section 5(3) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, read with Rule 81 of the Explosives Rules, 1940, and sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-taking into consideration the facts that the respondent has paid compensation to the survivors of the victims' families, has not been able to do business for the last two years and his stock of 1600 lbs. of fire works which was locked by Government has been rendered useless. In Emppror V. Mahadevappa 29 Bom LR 153 : (AIR 1927 Bom 209) (I) Mr. Justice Crump in the course of his judgment said that the employer's ignorance was often held to be a mitigating circumstance. With respect, we follow that view and as the respondent, according to his written statement, was not present in the factory at the time of the explosion hut was away, he might not have known that more than four persons were employed in manufacturing shed No. 2 on the date of the explosion. It is in view of these circumstances that while convicting the respondent under Section 5(3), we sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-or in default to suffer one month's rigorous imprisonment.