Advocates:
['M/S MA P THANGAVEL', '', 'B DEVAGI THANGAVEL', 'M LOKESH', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TAKES NOTICE']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.12.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.O.P.No.8341 of 2017

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.5988 and 5989 of 2017

1.C.Arjunan

2.A.Venkatesh Babu

3.Babu

4.Suresh

... Petitioners/ Accused 1-

4

Vs.

State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Karumalaikoodal Police Station,

Mettur,

Salem District. ... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to S.C.No.150 fo

2017 pending on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court,

Mettur, Salem District and quash the same as illegal,

incompetent and ultra vires.

For Petitioners : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel

For Respondent : Mr.C.Raghavan

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings

in S.C.No.150 of 2017, pending on the file of the Assistant

Sessions Court, Mettur, Salem District.

2.Based on the complaint given against the petitioner, an

FIR came to be registered against the petitioner for an offence

under Section 4(b) of the Explosive substance Act, 1908. The

case was investigated and a final report came to be filed by the

respondent police for an offence under Sections 4(b), 5 and 6 of

the Explosive Substance Act and Section 9 B of Explosive Act.

The said final report was taken cognizance by the Judicial

Magistrate No.2, Mettur and thereafter the case has been

committed to the Assistant Sessions Court, Mettur.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

admittedly in this case, the following substances were found in

possession of the petitioner:

1)316 bags of Ammonium Nitrate each

50 Kgs,

2)Unnamed explosive materials 10

bags each 50 kgs,

3)Two bags of PVC rasin each 25 kgs,

4)2 bags of Aluminium powder each 15

kgs totally 330 bags without valid

licence from the competent authority.

4.The learned counsel by pointing out the above substance

would submit that Ammonium Nitrate is not an Explosive

substance. In order to substantiate the said submission, the

learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this

Court the proceedings of the Department of Explosive, wherein

the said authority has categorically stated that Ammonium

Nitrate and Potassium Nitrate individually are not explosives.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further

submit that there is no requirement to have licence in order to

hold this substance. In order to substantiate this submission,

the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of

this Court, the communication from the Ministry of Commerce and

Industry Petroleum and explosives Safety Organisation (PESO),

made to the District Collector of Salem. In the said

communication, an opinion has been given with regard to the four

substances that were recovered from the petitioner and it has

been categorically stated that Items No.2, 3 and 4 which have

been mentioned herein above are not explosives and insofar as

Ammonium Nitrate is concerned, no specific rules have been made.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the

notice of this Court the fact that no licence is required for

the manufacture and storage of either Ammonium Nitrate or

Potassium Nitrate.

6.The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment

of this Court and also the judgment of the Andra Pradesh and

Madya Pradesh High Court, in order to substantiate his

submissions.

7.This Court in M.Antony Gomes Vs. State reported in 2014

SCC Online Mad 8100, held as follows:

“2.The complaint proceeds as if at about 13.45

on 08.06.2012, on instructions from the

Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, the

Inspector of police, by name lakshmi Murgugan,

special Sub Inspector of Police, and Suresh, Police

Consta