The prosecution has the burden of establishing the identity of the substances recovered from the accused and those sent for analysis by the expert in order to secure a conviction under the Explosive Substances Act.

V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The petitioners appeal has been dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that p. Ws. 1 and 2, who were the Crimean inspector and Sub Inspector of Police, found the petitioner at a choultry holding a blue. bucket. When they checked the petitioner they found six country made bombs. The bucket was seized by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and it was sent to the court on 6. 3. 1989. However, the court returned the bucket along with. country made bombs on 7. 3. 1989 to the police station. After six months, on 18. 9. 1989 the bucket was again produced before the court. On 13. 8. 1990 the opinions of the expert Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 were received by the court stating that the components recovered contain explosive substances. The trial court relying upon the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 "held that the substances recovered from the petitioner were explosive substances and , convicted the petitioner as stated above. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence accepting the finding of the trial court.

( 3 ) IT is contended by Sri Padmanabha reddy, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner that there is ho legal proof regarding the identity of the substances recovered in M. 0. 1, the. bucket and the substances sent for analysis by the expert on the basis of which the petitioner was convicted. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 does not reveal that the very substances recovered from the petitioner have been sent for examination to the expert and the prosecution therefore, failed to discharge the burden that the petitioner had been in possession of the explosive substances, thereby committing an offence punishable under the act.

( 4 ) THE case rests upon the evidence of P. W. s 1 and 2. They only deposed to the fact that on suspicion M. O. 1 has been seized from the petitioner which according to them are country made bombs . Though they sent the said M. O. 1 to the court, the court has not sent the same to the expert for opinion. The court returned M. 0. 1 to the police station on 7. 3. 1989 and it has been in possession of the police station since 8. 9. 1989. When they. again returned to the court, there is no evidence on record to show that the same substances have been sent to the Inspector of Explosives. P. Ws. 1 and 2 do not speak about the fact that the same substances have i been sent to the Inspector of Explosives. They could not speak of this because they were not said to be present when the seals of the bucket, M. O. 1 were opened for sending the components to the Inspector of explosives. The normal practice of the court in sending the M. Os. to the expert is not followed in this case. Hence no court witness has been examined in this regard. The opinion of the expert was received on 13. 8. 1990 in Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 stating that the componants of M. 0. 1 are containing explosive substances. There is no evidence on record to show that the opinion of the expert in Exs. P. 4 and P. 5 are with regard to the same substances that have been recovered from the petitioner on 5. 3. 1989. A bench of this court in "kumar and Another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" (1) 1972 An. W. R. (1) P. 159 observed as follows: admittedly, in this case, though the witnesses to the search and seizure describe the objects recovered by the police at the instance of the accused persons as "bombs" does not bring them within the meaning of explosive substance unless examined by one competent analyst, like the Inspector of explosives, to say or opine whether it is an explosive substance or not. It is for the competent analyst, like the inspector of Explosives, to say or opine whether the substance recovered by the po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document