All the three revision applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners of the three revision applications call in question the legality of the order dated 27.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the petition filed for discharge of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been rejected.

3. The petitioners have been made accused in Hatia P.S. Case No. 52 of 2001 instituted at the instance of Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Hatia Police Station on 22.03.2001 for the offence under Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act and under Section 17 of C.L.A. Act on the allegation that the Officer-in-charge received the confidential information that in the house of one Bal Govind Sahu near Satrangi Bazar, huge quantity of explosives have been kept and the said Bal Govind Sahu used to sell those explosives to the extremists and after that the informant along with police force conducted raid of the house of Bal Govind Sahu and seized 500 detonators being high explosive ignition, 122 pieces of gelatin, 25 kg. black substance kept in a bag, appeared to be gun Powder, and 102 bundles of safety fuse and on enquiry, the said Bal Govind Sahu and his son Tulsi Sahu informed that they have purchased it from one Aslam @ Pappu in Khunti but even after on demand, no document relating to the purchase was produced and they also disclosed that one Raj Kishore Sahu of Tipudana and Upender Pandey, a Munshi of Madan Singh of a place Bal Siling, have also purchased it and on the basis of the said information, raid was conducted in the shop of Raj Kishore Sahu and 21 detonators used for high explosive was seized and on enquiry, Raj Kishore Sahu also disclosed that he had purchased the explosive from Aslam @ Pappu of Khunti and further raid was conducted in the room of Upender Pandey, Munshi of Madan Singh and 70 pieces of detonators from a Box upon which it was inscribed “ high explosive” and 11 bundles of safety fuse were seized and on demand, he also failed to produce the documents relating to the explosives and all the persons were taken into custody.

4. It appears from the record that after investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the above sections against the petitioners and other accused persons whereafter cognizance was also taken under Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act and also under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, a petition under Section 227 of the Code for their discharge was filed, which was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2012 holding that there are sufficient materials on record to frame charges against the petitioners.

5. It appears from the order impugned that the question of sanction and other issues were raised before the court below but before this Court, relying upon a judgment reported in 2013(2) JBCJ 234 (Kamal Seikh and another Vs. State of Jharkhand), solitary question was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the detonator, which was seized by the police, is not a substance, which itself causes explosion rather it is dependent on a devise used to trigger and it will never fall within the definition of “Explosive Substance” as defined under Section 2 of the Explosive Substance Act ( in short “the Act”). As such, no offence is made out against the petitioners and they deserve to be discharged. Besides the above, no other point was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Contrary to aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the State submitted that “detonators” being used for purpose of causing explosion would fall within the definition of ‘Explosive Substance’ as defined in Section 2 of this Act and secondly that at this stage, a roving enquiry is not possible and the court below has rightly held t