1. This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.135/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-Thiruvalla to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a dealer in fire works with valid licence from the concerned authorities since 1995 and his licence is being renewed from time to time which is evident from Annexure I. While the petitioner's application for renewal was filed before the expiry of the licence and pending consideration, second respondent inspected the place and registererd crime under Section 9 (B) 1 (b) of Explosives Act and after investigation Annexure-2 final report was also filed against the petitioner. Though the investigating officer was convinced that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of deemed licence under Rule 112 (5) of the Explosive Rules, 2008, ignoring the same, the final report has been filed. In fact the petition for renewal was filed long before the expiry of the licence and it was later renewed. So the charge against the petitioner will not lie and proceeding with the case is only an abuse of process of the court. So he has no other remedy except to approach this court with the following reliefs:

"to pass an order quashing Final Report & FIR in Crime No.521/2013 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta."

3. Originally the District Magistrate and District Collector, Pathanamthitta was not a party to the proceedings, who is the licensing authority and as per order in Crl.M.A.No.2279/2014, he was also impleaded as additional third respondent. As directed by this court, the Senior Superintendent of the Office of the District Collector filed a statement regarding the factum of application for renewal etc. which reads as follows:

"1. It is submitted that petitioner has submitted an application for renewal of licence for sale (No.6/95/24) on 26.05.2011 and another application for renewal of licence for manufacture (No.5/95/20) on 06.12.2012. On 18.11.2013 licence for sale bearing No.6/95/24 was renewed. Meanwhile, a report was received from District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta with a request to cancel the explosive licence of petitioner. Both licences have been cancelled by proceedings dated 24.01.2014 of District Collector, Pathanamthitta. On 03.02.2014 itself the copy of above proceedings has been despatched from the office of District Collector, Pathanamthitta to the petitioner. Hiding the above fact that licences have been cancelled as on 24.01.2014, petitioner has submitted this Crl.M.C.

2. In the above circumstances, Crl.M.C. is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to dismissed."

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that it will be seen from the statement filed by the District Collector, the licensing authority, that application for renewal was pending with them and it was filed within time before the expiry of the earlier licence and it was later granted as well and it is during the interregnum period that the case has been registered. So the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of deemed licence under Rule 112 (5) of the Explosives Rules, 2008.

6. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that it is a matter for evidence.

7. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a licencee for sale of explosives which is evident from Annexure-I licence. It is also seen from Annexure-I that he is being given licence from 1995 onwards for sale of explosives and also for manufacture of explosive substances. It is also an admitted fact that at the time when the inspection was conducted by the S.I. of Police, Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta, the licence expired on 30.06.2011 and at the time when the shop was inspected, there was no licence as such. It was on that basis that Annexure-2 First Information Report was