IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of possessing a valid license for the transportation and sale of explosive substances, as mandated by the Explosive Act, 1884, is critical for legal compliance and environmental protection.

ORDER :

1. Under challenge before this Court is an order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Regular Criminal Revision No. 04/2024 affirming the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, vide which, the application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. seeking release of fire crackers on supardari was rejected. Same were seized by the Police pursuant to FIR No. 514/2023, Police Station Nohar for alleged offences under Section 286 IPC and Rules 5 & 9 of the Explosive Act, 1884.

2. Brief facts pleaded in the petition are that on 30.10.2023 a Police patrolling team stopped a vehicle Tata-S (Light Transport Vehicle) bearing registration No. RJ31-GB-6631, being driven by Deependra Singh. It was found laden with firecrackers without any valid licence to transport the same. The Police seized the goods and registered the FIR in question.

3. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the supardari application precisely for this reason that the driver had not produced any valid licence to transport or possess the firecrackers. Thus he did not find it appropriate to release the seized firecrackers. The learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the revision petition for same very reason.

4. Petitioner M/s Shiv General Store a proprietary concerned through its authorized person Kanhaiyalal alias Kanhaiyalal Garg has filed this petition. It is claimed that M/s Shiv General Store is having the valid licence for sale of explosive substances. However, neither before this Court it has been placed on record nor even otherwise it is discernible as to whether the same was placed on record of the learned courts below. A bare bald assertion has been made in course of the hearing that valid licence is there in the name of petitioner.

5. Even otherwise, on a Court query in course of hearing today, as to how the petitioner, which is a proprietary store is carrying out the business of manufacturing/trading and transportation of the fireworks without having the requisite licence to either manufacture or indulge in the trading of the same, no satisfactory response has come forth. In any case the same is matter of trial and evidence to be adduced before the learned court below at the appropriate stage and it is not for this Court to adjudicate on the same.

6. Having perused the impugned orders, I am of the view that same are based on valid reasoning. Even otherwise, the likely environmental damage by the use of firecrackers dissuades this Court to grant any indulgence. No ground is thus made out to interfere in the petition.

7. Dismissed.

8. Stay petition and all interlocutory applications also stand dismissed.