The court upheld the principle that charges should not be interfered with absent strong evidence or legal justification, emphasizing the role of suspicion in proceeding with criminal trials.

ORDER :

1. The present revision is filed by the applicants for setting aside the impugned order and the applicants be discharged from the offence i.e. Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the applicant No.1 is a partner of Firm M/s Tayyab Bhai Badruddin, which is licensee under the Explosive Act for possession and sale of explosives. Applicant No.2 works in the said firm. Under the terms of the license and the provisions of Explosive Act and Explosive Substances Act, the Firm can sale explosives to persons holding license to carry, posses and use the explosives. There is no dispute that one Kishumlal Bhakta of village Kodwa of P.S. Durg held such license bearing license No. 1927 which was seized by the Police. During investigation, the Police has also seized vide Annexure-A relevant registers of the Firm which records that 25 Kgs of explosive Special Gelatine and 25 Electric detonators were sold to Kishunlal Bhakta. There are corresponding entries in the register of Kishunlai Bhakta of the purchase of the said explosive with Bill Number, Voucher Number and Pass Number in the register which was seized by the Police vide Annexure-B.

3. On secret information, the competent authority raided the premises of the godown of co-accused Deepak Kumar and Ramkhilawan and found the explosives from their possession. On being enquiry made, the said co-accused told that they have brought it from the firm of Hunnaid Hussain. It was alleged that they did not possess the license for possessing the said explosives. It is alleged that the present applicants and the above two named persons were guilt of offences punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9 of the Explosive Act.

4. The learned trial Court on appreciation and due consideration of material available on record/charge-sheet, framed the charges against the applicants vide impugned order dated 05/04/1997 for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884. Hence, this revision.

5. Shri Anurag Verma, learned counsel would submit that he is appearing on behalf of the applicant No.1 and would submit that when the prosecution did not produce the seizure of documents made from Kishunlal and attempted to keep it back from the Court, it cannot be ruled out that statement of Kishunlal was purposefully not produced alongwith the case-diary. At any rate, the Court was not powerless to require the Investigating Agency to make further investigation by recording the statement of Kishunlal. He further submits that an adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution and documents seized from Kishanlal should have been taken into consideration while framing charges.

6. None for the applicant No.2.

7. Learned counsel for State/respondent supports the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. The present revision was filed in the year 1997 and by order dated 2/5/1997 the Court issued notice to the respondent and further stayed the proceedings in ST No.481/96 pending in the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, was stayed until further orders. Since then the matter is pending consideration i.e. last more than two & half decades.

10. It would be relevant to quote the provisions of Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, which read thus:

Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908

5. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances - Any person who makes or knowingly