SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1045

2004(6) Supreme 525
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar, JJ.
Lopchand Naruji Jat & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Gujarat -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 1999
Decided on 10-9-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Vimal Chandra S. Dave, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Advocate for Mrs. H. Wahi, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
No prior sanction for prosecution under Explosive Act is required or necessary.

Headnote:(i) Explosive Act, 1884-Section 9B(i)(b)-Conviction for possession of explosive without licence-Prior sanction for prosecution as provided for under Explosive Substances Act was not a requirement under the Act-Conviction could not be challenged on the ground. (Para 5)

       (ii) Explosive Act, 1884-Section 4(d)-Explosive-Appellants were found in possession of detonators-Courts below on evidence found that Ammonium tubes with electrical red wire were recovered-Articles were covered by Class-6 of Schedule I of the Act. (Paras 7 & 8)

       (iii) Explosive Act, 1884-Section 9B(i)(b)-Recovery of 180 detonators from possession of appellants-Sentence-Value of detonators was Rs. 900/- -Quantity seized disproved plea that seized articles were intended to be used for digging wells-Fact that accused tried to run away on seeing police was significant factor-Sentence of one year imprisonment with file could not be interfered with. (Para 9)

       

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court upholding their conviction for offence punishable under Section 9-B(i)(b) of the Explosive Act 1884 (in short the Act ). The Trial Court sentenced each of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

In a nutshell the background facts are as follows :

2. On 20.4.1988, the appellants came to Surat from Indore and were intercepted by the police at the bus stand. They were found to be in possession of 180 detonators. A criminal case No. 4 of 1990 was registered against the appellants-accused. They were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 9-B(i)(b) of the Act and Section 5 of the Terrorists & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (in short the TADA ). By judgment and order dated 12.10.1998 of the Trial Court, the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA. However, they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 9-B(i)(b) of the Act and were sentenced as aforesaid.

3. In the appeal before the High Court stand of the appellants was that without prior sanction of the Central Government for prosecution the proceedings were illegal. It was also submitted that articles recovered from the appellants cannot be said to be explosives and, therefore, also the appellants could not have been convicted. As there was no independent evidence and only the evidence of the investigating officer was relied upon, the conviction should not have been made. Residually it was submitted that the appellants had faced trial for about 10 years and should not have been convicted with punishment of custodial sentence as Section 9-B(i)(b) itself provides that fine only can be imposed. Respondent-State s stand was that no sanction was necessary under the Act. The report of the Controller of Explosive, Baroda, clearly indicated that the substance recovered from the appellants was explosive of Class 2 as prescribed in Schedule I to the Explosives Rules 1983 (in short the Rules ) as well as Explosive of Class 6 as defined in the said Schedule. A licence is obligatory for possession, transportation and use of the explosive. Since the substance recovered was an explosive as defined in Section 4(d) of the Act and no licence was detained, the conviction was well-merited. Learned Single Judge, held that no sanction was necessary under the Act for prosecution. The articles recovered were explosives and keeping in view the factual background the sentence as imposed was in order.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the points urged before the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State in response supported the judgment of the courts below.

5. It is to be noted that the plea relating to sanction is based on confusion between two statues i.e. The Act and the Explosive Substances Act 1908 (in short the Explosive Substances Act ). Prior sanction for prosecuting any person is provided under the Explosive Substances Act and there is no corresponding provision in the Act. Therefore, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in rejecting the plea. Coming to the question whether the seized articles were explosives, report of the Controller of Explosive which was produced as Exhibit-73 clearly discloses that the substances recovered were explosives of Class 2 and Class 6 of Schedule I. That being so, the plea that the articles were not explosives cannot be sustained.

6. The two classes are as follows :

"Class 2-Nitrate Mixture Class :

"Nitrate-mixture" means any preparation, other than gunpowder, which is formed by the mechanical mixture of a nitrate with any form of carbon with any carbonaceous substance not possessed of explosive properties, whether sulphur be or be not added to such preparation, and whether such preparation be not mechanically mixed with

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top