SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.522 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the appellants, who were accused in Sessions Case No.332 of 2008, on the file of the Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division, Ongole (for short, ‘the Sessions Judge’) challenging the judgment therein, dated 07.04.2009, whereunder the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the ES Act’), convicted them under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each. Further, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted them for the offence under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, 1992 (for short, ‘the APPS Act’).

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The Sessions Case No.332 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division, Ongole arose out of the committal order, dated 25.08.2008, by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) in PRC No.50 of 2008 under Section 209 Cr.P.C on the ground that there is a prima-facie case against the accused for the offences under Section 5 of the ES Act and Section 8(1) of the APPS Act.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows:

On 24.03.2006 evening at 05:30 PM, LW.3 – S. Veera Reddy, ASI-121 along with LWs.1 and 2, PC 1307 – V.Y. Naik and PC 369 – R. Srihari of Giddaluru Police Station, were conducting combing operation in the forest area of Burujupalli village and when they reached near Papineedu temple area, they found the accused in possession of 20 gelatin sticks, which were kept in a plastic bag. On noticing the Police party, they tried to run away. Then, ASI caught hold of them. On inquiry, the accused revealed about of the offence and then the Police party searched their plastic bag and found 20 gelatin sticks. They seized the same and arrested the accused at 06:30 PM under the cover of Police proceedings at the spot. They brought the accused to the Police station along with property and sent them for remand. The learned Magistrate granted permission to defuse 20 gelatin sticks by an expert. On 12.07.2006, the expert ARHC 1008 R.N. Reddy, Bomb Disposal Team, Ongole defused 20 gelatin sticks and preserved small quantity of the substance for sending to FSL, Hyderabad. On 25.07.2006, the preserved substance liquid was sent to FSL, Hyderabad, who analyzed the same and opined that it contains Ammonium Nitrate and Nitroglycerine, main ingredients of gelatin which contains highly explosive substance and it is dangerous to human life. LW.4, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Giddalur obtained opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor and further requested the District Magistrate to issue sanction order. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole issued sanction order on 11.11.2006, Ex.P-5, to prosecute the accused under the above provisions of law. Hence, the charge sheet.

5. The learned Magistrate, Giddalur took cognizance of the case under Section 5 of the ES Act and Section 8(1) of the APPS Act and, after completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Court of Session by virtue of the aforesaid committal order.

6. Before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole on appearance of the accused and after following the procedure under Section 228 Cr.P.C, charges under Section 5 of the ES Act and Section 8(1) of the APPS Act were framed, for which the accused denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution, during the course of trial, got examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5, Exs.C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top