KALAISELVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate I, Namakkal in Crl.M.P.No.2623 of 2002 in C.C.No.209 of 2002, dismissing the petition to discharge the accused/petitioner of offence under Section 9-B(1)(b) of Indian Explosives Act, 1883, on the ground that the points raised by the petitioner herein could not be considered at this stage and it is only the during the course of trial, they could be gone into.

(2.) For the purpose of disposing of this revision, the short facts of the prosecution case, may be briefly stated as follows:

(3.) Therefore, a perusal of the records of prosecution case itself would reveal that not only the Inspector of Police, Erumaipatti Police Station has registered the case by himself, but he is the person, who is said to have given the report itself, i.e to say that he has made it to appear in the First Information Report that while he was keeping a watch in the check post, he found an ambassador car crossing the check post of Mettupatti Check Post. On suspicion, he intercepted and inspected the same and during the course of which he found the contrabands to be illegally transported by four persons and on the confession given by one Palaniappan (A-1 in the main case), stating that the seized contrabands were purchased only from A-5, the petitioner herein was apprehended. The above stated facts are the gist of the contents found in the First Information Report. Further, his name also finds place under the caption Informant/complainant and that apart, he is the person, who has conducted the investigation and has filed the charge sheet.