Possession of explosives without a license under the Indian Explosives Act and the Explosive Substances Act, and the interpretation of legal provisions to determine the appellant's conviction under only one of the Acts.

Anant Singh, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted under Sec. 5 of the Indian Explosives Act (Act IV of 1884) as also under Sec. 5 of the Ex-plqisive Substances Act (Act VI of 1908) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each of the two counts, and the sentences are to run concurrently. There was another accused, Brahamdeo Singh who was charged under Sec. 5 of the Indian Explosives Act, but he has since been acquitted of the charge.

2. At about 4,30 p.m. on 14-6-1958, A. N. Misra (P. W. 14) the officer in charge of Mandu police station along with constable Hussain Ahmad (P. W. 5) was out from the police station for checking gambling which was reported to be going on in the Maidan near-north-east of a colliery belt. On the way, Hazrat Ansari (P. W. 4) and Perdorit (P. W. 12) joined the Sub-Inspector at his request. The appellant and Brahamadeo were seen picking up something from ground near a bush. Appellant Ramchandar had a bag in his hand.

They were at some distance from the Sub-Inspector when he challenged them. They both made a bid for run, but they were chased and errested. Debi Satan (P. W. 11), Sansar chamar (P. W. 13 tendered) and another Ramchandra happened to arrive, in the meantime, from the jungle side. The person of appellant Ramchandar and Brahmdeo was searched in their presence. Nothing incriminating was found from the person of Brahamdeo, but in the bag which the appellant was carrying 16 detonators with 96 inches wire and 16 Polar Viking cartridges were found.

They were suspeqted to contain exposive materials for which the appellant had no license as required under the rules framed under the Explosives Act as also under the Explosive Substances Act. The Sub-Inspector seized them, having prepared a seizure list, exhibit 5, in the presence of the aforesaid persons. The Sub-Inspector and P. W. 11 put their signatures on it and Ramchandra not examined and P. W. 4 put their respective left thumb marks on it.

3. The Sub-Inspector then drew up his report, exhibit 6. He examined the witnesses and took the appellant and Brahamdeo in custody. He took them along with the incriminating articles seized from the bag of the appellant to the outpost close by. He packed all the explosive materials in two wooden boxes and sealed them. He sent a requisition to the agent of the colliery to have the two boxes containing t the explosives kept in the colliery magazine meant for storage of explosives.

The Sub-Inspector himself also went to the colliery magazine- He verified and checked the stock of explosives with the stock register kept in the magazine. He noticed no defect. He had the two boxes containing the explosive seized by him from the bag of the appellant kept in the colliery magazine in charge of Sharfuldin Ahmad (P. W. 3), the magazine keeper, and entered this fact in his own pen exhibit 3 in the register of the magazine. This was on 14-6-1958.

4. Later, the Sub-Inspector arranged for an examination of the explosives, and in due course, they were examined by the Explosive Inspector Shri V, A, Chandra Shekharan (P. W. 9) on 22-8-1958, and he submitted his report, exhibit 4, after having had one of the cartridges examined by the Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of India, whose report also exhibit 9 he submitted along with his own report. It was found that the articles in question had contained explosive substances. On the recommendation of P. W. 9, the explosives were destroyed after their examination. After completion of the investigation the appellant and Brahamdeo were both charge sheeted with the sanction of the Government (exhibit 2). They were committed to the court of Sessions after enquiry by a magistrate.

5. Both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges. Nothing was recovered from the person of Brahamdeo, and on behalf of the appellant the very factum of recovery was challenged. It was alleged that the articles had been planted on him by the Sub-Inspector. It was fur