The central legal point established in the judgment is that the essential elements of the offenses under the Explosive Substance Act and the Explosives Act must be proven with evidence to establish liability.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 18.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in S.T. No.249 of 1999 whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge has been rejected holding that there are prima facie evidence for framing charge against the petitioner under Sections 4 / 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and 9B of the Explosives Act, as also under Section 414 of the I.P.C.

3. Petitioner has been made accused in Chirkunda (Maithan) P.S. Case No.157 of 1998, corresponding to G.R. No.2015 of 1998, for the offences under Sections 414 of the I.P.C., 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and 9B of the Explosives Act.

4. The prosecution case as it reveals from the F.I.R. is that on 11.6.1998, the coaccused Md. Naushad Ali was apprehended on a motorcycle and from his motorcycle, explosive materials were recovered by the police and on interrogation he disclosed that he has obtained the explosives from Dilip Mandal the petitioner and he was going to handover the explosive materials to the coaccused Md. Abid Hussain Ansari and Md. Mujibur Rab @ Munna. On the basis of recovery made from Md. Naushad Ali and on his discloser petitioner was made accused in the said case. It appears that after investigation, the police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner and sanction for prosecution was accorded as required and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions whereafter the petitioner filed application for discharge alongwith other accused persons which was rejected by the Court below by the impugned order dated 18.12.2013 though nothing was recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since no recovery was made from the possession of the petitioner, the offences as alleged, are not made out against this petitioner and it was a fit case for discharge and that admittedly even on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused no recovery has been shown from the possession of this petitioner and as such, no offence under Section 4 or 5 of the Explosive Substance Act or under Section 9B of the Explosives Act are made out against this petitioner. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that in similarly situated case arising out of same First Information Report bearing Cr. Revision No.262 of 2002, the coaccused has been discharged from the alleged offence.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer submitting that there is no illegality in the impugned order worth interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

7. For better appreciation of issue involved a reference of Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 is necessary which reads as follows :

“4. 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 special category explosive substance, or conspires to cause by an explosive substance or special category explosive substance, an explosion 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 or special category explosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property, 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 –

(i) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

(ii) in the case of any special category explosive substance, with rigorous imprisonment for