The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of conscious possession, reasonable suspicion, and the mandatory sanction from the Central Government for trial of offences under the Explosive Substances Act.

JUDGMENT

N.S.Shekhawat, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, the present appellant had been convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.10.1995, SHO Gurdial Singh alongwith ASI Jaswinder Singh, Constable Gurdip Singh and other police officials held a Naka at Simble Chock, Pathankot on the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. A jeep bearing registration No. HP-02-3098, being driven by the accused was seen coming from the opposite side, which was stopped by the police party. It was checked by the police party and on the search two gunny bags were recovered from the spot from the seat of the jeep. The two gunny bags were opened and it was found that there was explosive substance in the same. Two samples of 500 grams each were separated in plastic bags and two separate parcels were prepared. The remaining substance in the two bags, on weighing, was found to be 42 kilograms and 500 grams and 7 kilograms and 800 grams, respectively, which were put back in the same of gunny bags and all the parcels were sealed with the seal 'GS' and was handed over to ASI Jaswinder Singh. The case property was taken into possession vide a recovery memo, which was attested by ASI Jaswinder Singh and Constable Balbir Singh. On the personal search of the accused, a sum of Rs. 1400/- was recovered from the hand bag, which was held by the accused in his hand. Certain other recoveries were also made vide separate recovery memos. Even the jeep was also taken into possession vide a separate recovery memo, which was attested by the witnesses.

3. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses in all.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 ASI Jaswinder Singh, who was part of the team, which apprehended the accused alongwith about 51 kilograms of explosive of explosive substance. He is the witness to the recovery memo Ex.PA, vide which the case property was taken into possession. He also signed the recovery memo Ex.PB, whereby, currency notes, permit of jeep, one wrist watch, RC of the jeep and driving licence were taken into possession by the police. The prosecution examined Constable PW2 Wassan Singh, who had delivered the special report in the case. The prosecution examined PW3 Tarlok Singh, Reader to the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, who proved sanction for prosecution Ex.PE, which was bearing the signatures of the then District Magistrate, Gurdaspur. The prosecution examined PW4 Muni Lal, ASI Police Lines Gurdaspur, who registered the formal FIR Ex.PF/1. PW5 MHC Kuldip Kumar was posted as MHC in the Police Station and tendered his affidavit Ex.PG. PW6 Balbir Singh, Senior Assistant, Office of Secretary, State Transport Authority brought the record relating to the registration of the jeep in question, which stood in the name of Surinder Kumar appellant. The prosecution further examined PW7 (wrongly mentioned as PW8) SI Gurdial Singh, who was posted as SHO on the Police Station on 29.10.1995 and had conducted the initial investigation in the matter.

5. After conclusion of the evidence by the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he stated that his taxi was attached with the taxi stand near Pushap Cinema. The local police took away his taxi and kept with them for a number of days without paying him the charges. When he demanded the fare, he was detained and falsely implicated in the instant case. No explosive was recovered from his vehicle and these bags could not be placed under the seats of his vehicle.