##PAGE1##

1

2025:APHC:58246

APHC010144182014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3560]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 685 OF 2014

Between:

1. KOITHURI PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, R/O. D.NO.

22-11, TAVVA BAPANAIAH STREET, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR

DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. STATE OF AP REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT

OF A.P., HYDERABAD.

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following Order :

The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against an order of

conviction under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 (for brevity

“Explosives Act”.).

2

2025:APHC:58246

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the Petitioner had no

license to possess/ store fire crackers, instead of that Police have received a

credible information that the Petitioner has stored huge quantity of fire

crackers in Shops at Potti Sriramulu Complex, Chilakaluripet. On receipt of

information, the Police have rushed to the said complex with a team on

29.07.2008 at about 3.00 p.m and found Accused in front of Shop No. 20.

Huge quantity of fire crackers were seized in the presence of shop owners

and mediators and a case was started in Crime No. 152 of 2008.

3. During trial, the prosecution has placed as many as 9 witnesses

including Mediators being PW-4 and placed some documents, which are

marked as Ex.P1 to P7. Learned Trial Court on the basis of evidences of the

prosecution found the present Petitioner guilty for the offence punishable

under Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act and directed the Accused to suffer

imprisonment for a period of three (03) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.

2,000/-. Against which, the Petitioner approached the learned Appellate Court.

Learned Appellate Court has also confirmed the order of conviction and

sentence. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order of conviction

and sentence passed by learned Trial Court and confirmed by learned

Appellate Court is illegal and improper. He further submits that the prosecution

failed to bring home the charge against the present Petitioner. Admittedly,

father of the Petitioner have license of fire cracker business. The Police have

falsely implicated a 24 years old boy (Petitioner) in the instant Crime case.

3

2025:APHC:58246

5. He further submits that learned Trial Court as well as learned

Appellate Court has decided the issue in a wrong notion and found the

present Petitioner guilty. He has placed relevant portion of the judgment and

submits that the judgment and order of conviction of learned courts below is

improper. It is his positive contention that the Mediators Report and evidence

of Mediator has never been proved the guilt against the present Petitioner.

The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation of illegal

possession of explosive substances by the present Petitioner. Learned

counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the evidence of Investigating

Officer is not justified to prove the ingredients of offence under Section

9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that learned Trial Court

as well as learned Appellate Court has categorically scanned the evidences.

Conviction of the Petitioner was based on evidence of mediator, who

specifically deposed that the huge quantity of explosives was seized from the

possession of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had stored huge quantity of

explosives without having any valid license. Nothing has been suggested

before learned Trial Court that the explosives were seized from the licensed

premises of the Petitioner’s father and it was seized in this case in different

places. He further submits that the Mediator’s Report has been sufficiently

proved. Accordingly the conviction is maintainable. He also