Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Rule 128(3) of the Explosives Rules, had been duly followed in this case and Rule 128(3) states that whenever any explosives are seized, they shall be stored up in an isolated place under adequate guard until examination by the Chief Controller or Controller and receipt of instructions from him as to their disposal. With regard to the G.Os. relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the said G.Os. are only recommendatory and not mandatory. Learned Public Prosecutor also invited the attention of this Court to Section 293(4) of Cr.P.C. and submitted that the Controller of Explosives is the competent person to test the explosives. Thus, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has proved the possession of explosives with the appellant, by cogent and convincing evidence.

21. It is yet another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the packets of the explosive substance, as per the evidence of P.W.10, were handed over to him by P.W.3, who brought the packets containing explosive substances and they were handed over to P.W.10 for conducting test. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since the packets were not sealed, there is a chance for tampering with the same. In my considered opinion, unlike some special Acts, like NDPS Act, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, etc., the Explosives Substances Act does not contemplate putting seal on the cover/packets in which the explosive substances are kept. Further, as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, if the seizing officer, who is not an expert under the Explosive Substances Act, affixes a seal on a packet which contains explosive substances, there is every possibility that it might explode. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this is the reason why the Explosives Substances Act or the Explosives Rules, does not prescribe any Rule regarding putting of seal on the seized materials. However, on a perusal of Ex.P-7 report, it is seen that the explosive substances were put in packets which are tied with twine thread. Therefore, absolutely there is no possibility of any tampering of explosive substance.

24. In the above context, it is appropriate to extract Rule 128(3) of the Explosives Rules and Section 293(4) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

"Rule 128: Powers of search and seizure:
.. ...
(3) Whenever any explosives are seized they shall be stored up in a isolated place under adequate guard until examination by the Chief Controller or Controller and receipt of instructions from him as to their disposal."
"Section 293 Cr.P.C: Reports of certain Government scientific experts:
... ...
(4) This Section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:--
(a) ...
(b) the Chief Controller of Explosives;

...."

In the instant case, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that P.W.10 who is the Controller of Explosives, working in the office of the Chief Controller of Explosives, is the competent person to examine the seized materials as per above Rule 128(3) of the Explosives Rules and Section 293(4) Cr.P.C.

25. In the above view taken by this Court, it is not necessary to dwell into the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, as the same are distinguishable on facts.