Possession of explosives without a license constitutes unlawful possession under S.4 while lack of evidence for unlawful purpose negates conviction under S.5.

1. Radhelal Satnami, appellant herein was tried for commission of offences punishable under S.4 & S.5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (henceforth 'Act, 1908 - ) on the charges that on 9.7.1999 about 17. - 50 in village Basabar, P.S. Gandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon, from the possession of appellant four Live Detonator, Explosive Thread, Potassium Chlorate and Amonium Nitrate have been seized, which are explosive substances, from which the life and property could be endangered or by causing its explosion, life and property could be damaged.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the court of trial are as under:
2.1 On 9.7.1999, the Officer - in - Charge of police station - K.P. Banjare (PW - 3) has received information by informer to this effect that in village Basabar, Radhelal Satnami, appellant herein has illegally kept the explosive substances in his house. On his information the said Officer along with Sub-Inspector Lahri reached to the house of appellant where he made raid in the house of appellant, in presence of witnesses one Lodhi and Domar and seized four live detonator, one explosive thread and 500 explosive substances of white colour, which was kept in a plastic bag, and the appellant was enquired about the licence for keeping explosive substances but he denied to have any licence, then the police made seizure of said explosive substances and sent for its chemical examination in which it is reported to be explosive substance, thereafter sanction for prosecution of the appellant has been obtained from District Magistrate and after completion of investigation charge - sheet has been filed before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khairagarh and after committal, case was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagah.
2.2. The Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh framed the charges under S.4 & S.5 of the Act, 1908, against the appellant and read over to him but the appellant denied to commit any offence and pleaded for trial.
2.3. To bring home the offence, prosecution examined three witnesses namely Adhin (PW - 1), Domar (PW - 2) and K.P. Banjare (PW - 3), Investigating Officer and brought eight documents to prove the charges - whereas appellant neither examined any witness nor brought any exhibits in support of his case.
2.4 Learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record and considering the contentions of the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant / accused as follows: -
(i) Under S.4 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
(ii) Under S.5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2.5 Questioning the said conviction and sentence awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, instant appeal under S.374(2), Cr. P.C. has been filed before this Court by the appellant herein.

3. Shri Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit as under: - (i) That, the articles seized from the appellant was not proved to be the explosive substances within the meaning of S.4 & S.5 of the Act, 1908. (ii) Prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was in conscious possession of the said explosive substances. (iii) Prosecution has failed to prove that possession of the explosive substances for a lawful object.

4. As against this, Mr. Gupta, le