P.SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the entire proceedings against them in S.C.No.5031/2021 registered by Sathanoor Police Station, for offences punishable under Ss. 3,5,6 of Explosive Substance Act and Sec. 9(b) of Explosive Act and 286, 304 of IPC, pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kanakapura.

(2.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on the suo- motu complaint registered by the Satanur police on 16/8/2021 alleging that he received the information that a car parked within the jurisdiction of the Satanur police station got blasted and a person died in the car bearing registration No.KA-51-P-3384. On enquiry about the same, he came to know that the dead person was Mahesh who was carrying Gelatin in his car and at that time it got exploded. After registering case against deceased/accused No.1 and during the investigation it was revealed that this petitioner is said to be license holder of the explosives. The deceased said to have purchased explosives from the shop of the petitioner, therefore they have been shown as accused persons and charge sheet filed against them. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 said to have contacted accused No.2 and accused No.2 said to have contacted accused No.3 and the Gelatin was purchased from the shop of the accused Nos.4 and 5 and they said to have violated the provision of Explosives Act and Explosives Substance Act. The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 and they have challenged the charge sheet on the various ground. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended the petitioner/accused Nos.4 and 5 are the license holder and they are selling the explosive substance, but as on the date of the alleged incident they were not present in the shop, they were present at Bangalore. The accused no.2 was the worker who is said to have supplied the gelatin to the accused No.1/deceased. The same was revealed only on the voluntary statement of accused Nos.6 and 7. Except the voluntary statement, there is no other material to implicate these petitioners and these petitioners have no knowledge about selling of the gelatin or explosives by accused No.2, and there is no bill issued by this petitioner for having sold the explosives.