THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14511 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.230 of 2025 of Wanaparthy Rural Police Station, Wanaparthy District, registered for the offences under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 288 of BNS.

2. Heard Sri L. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land, but he is not concerned with the blasting operations in the subject land. He further submitted that the boulders in the subject land are being blasted by the workers. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act does not get attracted against the petitioner herein, as he was not present at the site at the time of blast. He further submitted that the tractor was brought by accused No.2 and that the blasting operations are being carried out in the subject land by accused No.2 with the help of accused No.3. Thus, no malicious intention can be attributed to the petitioner herein. He further submitted that in the absence of Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, there cannot be any offence under Section 288 of BNS, as alleged against the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioner herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that upon enquiry, the de facto complainant came to know that two individuals were conducting blasting operations in the subject land without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities and the two individuals, who were found at the site, were identified as the petitioner-accused No.1, being the owner of the subject land, and accused No.2-tractor driver. Therefore, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act definitely gets attracted against the petitioner herein.

He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 288 of BNS. The same are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference.

Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act:

“3. Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property.-

Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by—

(a) any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

(b) any special category explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with death, or rigorous imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 288 of BNS “288. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance.-

Whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.”

7. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 and is the owner of the subject land. The allegations in the complaint are that on hearing the noise of explosion, the de facto complainant, who is a police constable, along with few other personnel, we