[2025:RJ-JP:28142]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1153/2016

1. Babulal S/o Rameshwarlal R/o Ward No. 10, Palsana, Distt. Sikar

2. Ratanlal S/o Sagarmal R/o Tulsi Rampura, Police Station Khatu Shyamji, Distt. Sikar ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

24/07/2025

1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners aggrieved from order dated 22.06.2016 in criminal appeal No.02/2016 (29/2014) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Sikar whereby appeal preferred by appellants Babulal and Ratanlal from judgment dated 14.02.2014 in criminal case No.84/2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantaramgarh was allowed and after setting aside the judgment of trial court, the matter was remitted with direction to commit the same to the sessions court for trial.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that one of the appellants has expired during pendency of appeal and due to non grant of stay the trial court has issued a warrant of arrest against another appellant. He placed on record warrant of arrest issued against Babulal.

3. Considered submissions of learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor.

4. In a matter arising out of FIR No.119/2016 registered at P.S. Dantaramgarh, Sikar, police has filed charge-sheet against Babual under Section 5 of Explosive Act and 3/181 of MV Act and against Ratanlal under Section 5 of Explosive Act, Bhadarmal and Indraj under Section 5/181 of MV Act. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantaramgarh after full trial has convicted Ratanlal for offence under Section 5 of Explosive Act, Indraj under Section 5/181 of MV Act and Babulal under Section 5 of Explosive Act and 3/181 of MV Act. Babulal and Ratanlal have preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, which was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Sikar and on 22.06.2016, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of conviction against Babulal and Ratanlal, remanded the matter to the learned ACJM, Dantaramgarh with direction to commit the matter to sessions court.

5. A perusal of report indicated that police has filed a charge- sheet under Section 5 of Explosive Act. Section 5 of Explosive Act, 1884 provides for power to make rules as to license of manufacturing, possession, use, sale, transport and importation of explosive. Section 9B of Explosive Act 1884 provides for punishment for certain offence whereas Section 9C provides for offence by companies. It is apparent that in the instant case, Explosive Act, 1884 is not applicable and the courts below have committed serious error while referring Explosive Act in their order.

6. Another identical law is in the name of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act provides for punishment in making or possessing explosives under the suspicious circumstances. The facts narrated in the charge-sheet indicated that police meant to file charge-sheet under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908.

7. Under Section 5, the period of punishment is imprisonment upto 14 years and as per Cr.P.C. (BNSS), if any person charged for offence punishable more than 10 years like under Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act, then same has to be tried by the court of session. In the instant case, the appellate court by order dated 22.06.2016 has referred the provision of Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act and as per reference of the appellate court the matter is required to be committed to the sessions court. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantaramgarh has tried the matter and passed an order in a case which ought to have tried by court of sessions, thus judgment dated 14.02.2014 is beyond competence of learned trial court. The ground goes to the root of the matter thus the appellate