LOPCHAND NARUJI JAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court upholding their conviction for offence punishable under Section 9-B(i) (b) of the Explosive Act, 1884 (in short the 'Act'). The trial Court sentenced each of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) In a nutshell the background facts are as follows:

(3.) In the appeal before the High Court stand of the appellants was that without prior sanction of the Central Government for prosecution the proceedings were illegal. It was also submitted that article recovered from the appellants cannot be said to be explosives and, therefore, also the appellants could not have been convicted. As there was no independent evidence and only the evidence of the investigating officer was relied upon, the conviction should not have been made. Residually it was submitted that the appellants had faced trial for about 10 years and should not have been convicted with punishment of custodial sentence as Section 9-B(i) (b) itself provides that fine only can be imposed. Respondent-State's stand was that no sanction was necessary under the Act. The report of the Controller of Explosive, Baroda, clearly indicated that the substance recovered from the appellants was explosive of Class 2 as prescribed in Schedule I to the Explosives Rules 1983 (in short the 'Rules') as well as Explosive of Class 6 as defined in the said Schedule. A licence is obligatory for possession, transportation and use of the explosive. Since the substance recovered was an explosive as defined in Section 4(d) of the Act and no licence was detained, the conviction as well-merited. Learned Single Judge, held that no sanction was necessary under the Act for prosecution. The articles recovered were explosives and keeping in view the factual background the sentence as imposed was in order.