1. This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash Annexure F charge sheet laid against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under S.9B(1) of The Explosives Act, 1884.

2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 07.08.2013, the petitioner was found in possession of 25 bundles of Safety Fuses and 100 ordinary Detonators kept in the store room of the premises owned by the petitioner at Thonipoika. Under the premise that the petitioner was in possession of the above explosives without a valid licence or permit, investigation was conducted and charge was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is running a quarrying unit under the name and style as "Al-Fathima Metal Crusher Unit" at Anchal. Annexure B is the consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the petitioner for the purpose of running a Granite Rock quarrying unit. The said permit, according to the learned counsel, is valid from 17.10.2011 to 31.12.2013. The learned counsel also relies on Annexure B consent variation order, as per which, the validity of the licence has been extended till 30.06.2014. Relying on Annexure C certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities, it is submitted that the petitioner was in possession of a valid permit on 07.08.2013 as well, which is the date on which the premises was inspected by the Sub Inspector of Police. Annexure D is the licence issued to the petitioner by the Controller of Explosives on 15.02.2012 and it is clear from Annexure-D that the same is valid till 31.3.2015. In short, the contention of the learned counsel is that, on the date of inspection i.e., on 07.08.2013, the petitioner was in possession of a valid Explosives licence as well as permit from all the authorities concerned and in view of the above, the registration of Annexure A crime on 07.08.2013 on the basis of the allegation that the petitioner was operating quarry without a proper licence cannot be sustained under law. It is further submitted that, in view of the above, this Court will be justified in quashing the criminal proceeding as the continuance of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of court.

5. The learned Public prosecutor would vehemently oppose the contentions of the learned counsel. But it was fairly submitted, based on instructions, that investigation revealed that the petitioner was having a licence to operate the quarry and was also armed with the licences and permits produced along with the petition.

6. Annexure F is the final report laid against the petitioner by the second respondent. It reveals that the petitioner is accused of having committed offence punishable under S.9B(1) of The Explosives Act, 1884. S.9B of the Explosives Act reads as follows:

9B: Punishment for certain offences:-

(1) Whoever, in contravention of rules made under section 5 or of the conditions of a licence granted under the said rules-

(a) manufacturers, imports or exports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;

(b) possesses, uses, sells or transports any explosive shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both; and

(c) in any other case, with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

7. Annexures B to E reveals that the petitioner was operating the granite quarry after obtaining licence and consent from all the authorities concerned. Annexure D is the licence in Form LE-3 which reveals that the licence granted to the petitioner is valid for use of Nitrate Mixture, Safety Fuse, Electric Detonators and Ordinary Detonators. As per the said lic