A holder of an expired explosives license may still be deemed to possess a valid license if the renewal fee has been paid before the expiration.

ORDER

Petitioner herein is the holder of a license under the Explosives Act, 1884 permitted to possess the specified explosives within the category fixed by Annexure-A2 license. It was renewed upto 31.03.2015. On 30.07.2015, the Sub Inspector of Police inspected the premises of the petitioner's property and recovered explosive substances including cap, gum and detonator, from the magazine attached to the quarry run by the petitioner herein. Crime was registered on an allegation that he was running the quarry and holding the explosives without a valid license during the relevant period. Crime was registered for offence punishable under section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court contending that though the period of license had expired during the relevant time, he had remitted the requisite fee as provided under the Rules evidenced by Annexure-A3 on 04.03.2015 and was waiting for its renewal. It was contended that, in the light of Annexure-A3, he was entitled to get the presumption of deemed license as contemplated under section 112(b) of the Explosive Amendment Rules 2009.

Crl.M.C.5280/16

3. Regarding the place from where the explosive substances were recovered, FIS is very categoric. It is mentioned that it was recovered from the magazine premises attached to the quarry run by the petitioner. Clause (iii) of Annexure-A2 license permits the petitioner herein to store explosive in the Magazine. Regarding the validity of the license, the only material now available is the receipt evidencing the deposit of the money. Annexure-A3 clearly shows that the deposit of Rs.1,000/- was the explosive renewal fee. Even though there is no supporting evidence to show that a separate application was filed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the practice that was prevailing during the relevant time was to remit the money and to get the license extended by getting it entered in the appropriate place of Annexure- A2. Learned counsel pointed out that the license was renewed at definite intervals as evident from Annexure-A2. It clearly shows that originally the license was renewed on 31.03.2014 upto 31.03.2015 and later, to 31.03.2016. It shows that even after the crucial date, the license was in fact extended. Further, even the Crl.M.C is laid on a specific premise that in the light of the remittance of the fee, petitioner was entitled to claim the benefit of deemed license as contemplated under Rule 112 of the Rules. In Crl.M.C.5280/16 the statement filed by the State, there is no definite contention either that the amount was not remitted or that no request for extension was made. In the absence of it, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under Rule 112 of the Rules. Consequently, it is to be held that the petitioner was holding the license as contemplated under section 112(b) of the Rules and hence, offence as alleged against the petitioner herein is not legally sustainable. Consequently, entire proceedings is liable to be quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed quashing all the further proceedings.

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings arising from Crime No.958 of 2015 of Kanjirappally Police Station stand quashed.