IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a lawful object for possession of explosive substances and the implications of carrying out business without a license under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against order dated 13.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.164 of 2021 in S.C.No.317 of 2019 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Wanaparthy, dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, who is A1 in S.C.No.317 of 2019,.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2017 at 16.30 hours, officer-L.W.9 received credible information about the illegal possession of explosive substances at Thatipamulla village. L.W.9 along with police constables LWs 1 to 3 rushed to Sy.No.481/U, 481/R in the limits of Thatipamula village and searched at quarry of M/s.Neelam Goud Builders and Developers. In one room, the police found ideal power 90 company gelatin sticks 280, busters-36, detonators 162. Meggar box batters-3, ammonium nitrate-180 kgs and ideal cord fuse-03 kept in stock without taking any precautionary measures and that it may endanger human life. L.W.9 seized the property in the presence of mediators LWs 5 & 6 and affixed the panch chits to the property after sealing the property. The scene of offence is located in Thatipamula village outskirts in the premises of M/s.Neelam Goud Builders and Developers Crusher Machine located in Sy.No.481/U, 481/R. On enquiry about the owner of the crusher it was revealed that the Revision Petitioner/Accused No.1 S.Neelam Goud, S/o.Narayan Goud, R/o.Takkasila village, Undavelli Mandal is the owner. On the basis of above search and seizure proceedings, SHO-L.W.10 registered Cr.No.34 of 2017 under Section 3, 4, 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act of 1908’) and took up investigation.

3. The case against the revision petitioner in the charge sheet is that he is the owner of Neelam Goud Stone Crusher, having purchased the property eight months ago from one Pulla Reddy R/o.Banaganapally village of Kurnool District. A2 is the supervisor of the same crusher and A3 is the supplier of explosive substances.

4. It is alleged that the explosives storage place i.e. magazine of Crusher was not registered in the name of revision petitioner and continued on the name of said Pulla Reddy. A2 (supervisor of the crusher) did not know about the arrangement between the revision petitioner and Mr.Pulla Reddy and he was working as supervisor in the crusher. According to investigation, the business of revision petitioner was running in financial loss, due to which, A1 & A2 decided to blast more stones and boulders in order to get profits in their business. Accordingly, as per the instructions of revision petitioner, A2 purchased huge stock of explosive substances from A3 and kept in a room (magazine of the crusher) in the premises of crusher without taking any precautionary measures and that it may endanger human lives. The said acts by petitioner and the others amount to offence under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Act of 1908.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that none of the allegations leveled in the charge sheet make out any of the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. To attract an offence under Section 3 of the Act, a person has to cause explosion likely to endanger life or property, which is not attracted in the present circumstances. Likewise, Section 4 is also an attempt to cause explosion or for making or keeping explosives with intent to endanger life or property. Section 4 is also not attracted because the only reason stated by the investigating agency is that explosives were kept with an intention to cause more blasts of the rocks in order to over come losses.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that in order to attract Section 5 of the Act, there must be allegation that the accused should be in possession of the explosive substances and such possession should give rise to suspicion that it is in his possession or under his control, not for lawful object. The third limb of Section 5 of the Act that unless the accused can show that he had explosives in his possession for lawful object will not b