1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Acquittal Appeal No.425 of 2010

State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Charama, District-

Kanker (CG)

---- Appellant

Versus

Mangluram, S/o. Late Gendram, aged about 40 years, R/o.

Madan Mohan Singh @ Pappu Singh Crasher Machine,

Kurrubhat, P.S.-Charama, District – Kanker (CG)

---- Respondent

For Appellant:

Mr.Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer

For Respondent:

None present though served

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Judgment on Board

(27.6.2022)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This acquittal appeal is directed against the impugned

judgment dated 27.4.2010 by which the learned Sessions

Judge, North Bastar Kanker in Sessions Case No.89/2009,

acquitted the respondent herein from the charges under

Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908

(hereinafter called as 'Act of 1908') holding that the

prosecution has failed to bring home the aforesaid

offences beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Mr.Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer for the

appellant/State, would submit that the learned Sessions

Judge has committed grave legal error in acquitting the

respondent herein by recording a finding which is

2

perverse to record. He would further submit that

finding of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the

prosecution has failed to bring home the offence is a

perverse finding and contrary to material available on

record and as such, it is liable to be set-aside.

3. None present for the respondent though served.

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant / State, considered his submissions made

herein-above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

5. Case of the prosecution in brief, is that on 24.11.2008

at village Kurrubhat in two rooms of crusher plant

owned by Madan Mohan Singh @ Pappu Singh the appellant

herein has kept safety fuse wire length 6 mtr. x 25

points, 7 kg. of explosive substance in Uriya bag and 7

pieces of detonator without any license and without

authority of law and thereby committed the offence.

6. Learned Sessions Judge after appreciating oral and

documentary evidence available on record acquitted the

respondent herein from the aforesaid offences holding

that the said offences have not been proved.

7. The respondent was charged for offence under Sections 4

and 5 of the Act of 1908 from whom he has been

acquitted. Section 4(b) of the Act of 1908 states as

under:-

“4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion,

or for making or keeping explosive with intent

to endanger life or property.-Any person who

3

unlawfully and maliciously-

(a)

xxx

xxx

xxx

(b) makes or has in his possession or under his

control any explosive substance or special

category explosive substance with intent by

means thereof to endanger life, or cause

serious injury to property, or to enable any

other person by means thereof to endanger life

or cause serious injury to property in India.”

8. In order to bring home the offence under Section 4(b)

of the Act of 1908, the prosecution has to prove that

the substance in question was explosive substance and

the accused was in his possession or under his control

any explosive substance with intent to endanger life or

cause serious injury to property in India.

9. Explosive substance has been defined in Section 2 of

the Act of 1908. The definition states as under:-

“2(a). In this Act the expression “explosive

substance” shall be deemed to include any

materials for making any explosive substance;

also any apparatus, machine, implement or

material used, or intended to be used, or

adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any

explosion in or with any explosive substance;

also any part of any such apparatus, machine or

implement.”

10.Thus, Section 2 of the Act of 1908 has a deeming

provision which states that explosive substance would

include any materi