Hon'ble MEHTA, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 15.11.1997 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 75/1992 whereby the learned Special Judge has rejected the prayer of the accused petitioners to send their case to the concerned Magistrate for trial in relation to the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The petitioners were charge-sheeted for the said offences and their case was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offences were posed as triable exclusively by the Sessions Court. The petitioners filed an application before the committal court for sending their case to the concerned Magistrate on the ground that the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act are punishable with imprisonment for 7 years and 5 years respectively and as such the same are triable by the Court of a First Class Magistrate only. The said application was rejected on 15.11.1997 on which the petitioners have approached this Court through this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act prescribes imprisonment for a period of 7 years or transportation for a fixed term of "twenty years" and Section 5 of the said Act prescribes punishment for a period of 5 years or transportation for a fixed term of "fourteen years." He contended that the phrases used in the said Sections "transportation for a term" which may extend to 20 years and 14 years respectively stand omitted by the effect of Section 53A of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that upon the omission of the said phrase from both the Sections, the offences would remain punishable only with imprisonment of 5 years and 7 years respectively and, as such, the case would be triable by the Court of First Class Magistrate by virtue of the schedule to the Cr.P.C. He thus submitted that the learned Special Judge has committed a grave error in rejecting the application filed by the accused for sending their case to the concerned Magistrate for trial. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(1) Latif Mohammad Butt @ Bilal Ashraf vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2007 (99) DRJ 182;

(2) Javed Ahmed Munshi vs. State reported in 2005(84) DRJ 421; and

(3) Sabu vs. State of Keerala reported in 2008(1) KLJ 630.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions advanced at the bar.

5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar, perused the order impugned and the record.

6. For easy reference, the relevant provisions of law i.e. Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 53A I.P.C., are reproduced here under:-

"Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act:-

"Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property.-Any person who unlawfully and maliciously-

(a) does any act with intent to cause by an explosive substance, or conspires to cause by an explosive substance, an explosion in India of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property; or

(b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property in India, or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in India;

shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with transportation for a term which may extend to twenty years, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, to which fine may be added.

Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act:-

Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document