The court emphasized that at the stage of framing of charge and considering the discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible, and the judge is only required to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out for the accused to stand trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dumka in connection with Sessions Trial No. 163 of 2019 arising out of Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 45 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge of the petitioners from the criminal liability has been rejected by holding therein that there is ground for presuming that both the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 4,5 and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.

2. The aforesaid case was listed before the learned single Judge of this Court but later on vide order dated 19.05.2023 the learned Single Judge in the light of judgment as rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Saw @ Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2023(1) JBCJ 88(F.B), had directed the office to place this matter before the division bench with the permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice and accordingly, the instant case has been assigned to this bench.

3. Although the case has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of revision but the learned Single Judge while dealing with the application by taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the Rakesh Saw @ Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) has referred the matter to be listed before the Division Bench. Although the nomenclature of this case is Criminal Revision but it is being treated as Criminal Appeal in the light of the aforesaid judgment, as such, this Court is looking into the impugned order under the appellate jurisdiction.

4. The factual matrix leading to filing of the instant case in brief reads as under:

On the basis of secret information, a pick-up van bearing registration no. JH-12B-9369 was intercepted and driver disclosed his name as Nand Kishore Mehta and failed to produce any document and told that documents were in possession of vehicle owner namely Rupak Singh and disclosed that loading was made at Koderma. It is further alleged that for the purpose of safety and verification vehicle was brought and kept at police station and till 4:00 PM of 13.05.2014 when owner of vehicle did not turn up along with paper search was made after getting the lock of pick-up van opened by the driver in presence of two independent witnesses and allegedly 100 cartoons on which EMULDYME explosives written each containing 200 pieces of Gelatin were recovered and thereafter they were seized and seizure list was prepared accordingly and the case has been registered.

5. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken the ground that even if the entire material taken into consideration on the basis of the case instituted as would be taken from the FIR and the material collected in course of investigation as referred in the case diary, no case is made out.

6. It has been contended that the petitioner no.1 is registered owner of the seized pick-up van bearing registration No. JH-12B- 9369 and possesses license for carrying explosives up to 2250 kg issued by Joint Chief Controller of Explosives vide license No. E/EC/JH/25/426 (E69580) valid till 31.03.2017 and petitioner No.2 is driver of the said pick- up van and said pick-up van was hired by M/s Jharkhand Explosives Private Limited, District-Koderma for carrying explosives vide agreement dt. 15.03.2013 and xerox copies of Challans are also filed along with petition to show that explosives loaded on said vehicle were legal and valid. It has been contended that based upon the genuine documents, the petitioner No.2 started to carry the explosives on 12.05.2014 for its destination but the same was intercepted by Officer-In-Charge of P.S. Shikaripara and taken to police station. Even though, producing all valid and genuine documents by petitioner No.2 before