In cases involving the possession of explosive substances, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the explosive substance. The absence of independent witnesses may affect the credibility of the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant, who is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.334 of 2008, on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, Ongole (for short, 'the Sessions Judge') challenging the judgment therein, dated 07.04.2009, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, 'the ES Act'), convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The Sessions Case No.334 of 2008 arises out of the committal order, dated 04.08.2008, by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur (for short, 'the learned Magistrate') in PRC No.52 of 2008 under Section 209 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there is a prima-facie case against the sole accused for the offence under Section 5 of the ES Act.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows:

On 06.06.2006 at 04:50 PM, LW.3 - P. Akkeswara Rao, along with LWs.1 and 2 - PC 1778 - K.V.Ratnam and PC 1190 - Y. Srinivasulu of Giddaluru Police Station, having received credible information about the illegal possession of explosive substance, proceeded to Giddalur - Mundlapadu road and found the accused in possession of plastic bag and accused confessed about the offence and, on verification, they found 4 gelatin sticks, seized the same and arrested the accused at 05:20 PM under the Police proceedings. The Police obtained permission from the competent Court to defuse four gelatin sticks. On 12.07.2006, ARHC 1008 R.N. Reddy, Bomb Disposal Team, Ongole defused four gelatin sticks and preserved small quantity of the substance for sending to FSL, Hyderabad. On 25.07.2006, the preserved substance liquid was sent to FSL, Hyderabad, who analyzed the same and opined that it contains Ammonium Nitrate and Nitroglycerine, main ingredients of gelatin which contains a high explosive substance and it is dangerous to human life. After obtaining opinion from the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and after obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused, charge sheet is filed. The learned Magistrate, Giddalur took cognizance of the case under Section 5 of the ES Act and after completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Session by virtue of the aforesaid committal order.

5. On appearance of the accused before the Court below and after following the procedure under Section 228 Cr.P.C, a charge under Section 5 of the ES Act was framed, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, during the course of trial, got examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5, Exs.C1, C1(1) and C1(2) and MO.1.

7. The accused was subjected to 313 Cr.P.C examination after closure of the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and reported no defence evidence.

8. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 5 of the ES Act, and after convicting him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. questioned him about the quantum of sentence and after hearing the accused about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as stated above.

9. Being aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in S.C. No.334 of 2008 filed the present Criminal Appeal.

10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution proved before the Court below,