RAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO contentions were urged before me, by Thiru R. A. Dhanasekaran , Learned counsel for the petitioner. The first is that Sec. 5 (3) (b) of the Indian Explosives act had been repeated with effect from 2. 3. 1983 and as a matter of fact after the said date, the Act is called the Explosives Act and not the Indian explosives Act and that, therefore, a charge cannot be maintained under a repealed enactment.

(2.) THE second contention is that the petitioner is a holder of a licence for several years to stock and sell explosives. THE licence was produced before the lower court and is produced before me as well. THE petitioner has also produced before me a letter dated 16th May 1986 from the Government of India, Department of Explosives, Shastri Bhavan, Madras-6 to indicate that even on 15. 2. 86 the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence to the concerned authority as ordained by Rule 165 (3) of the Explosive Rules. THE rule reads that every application for the renewal of a licence shall be made so as to reach the licensing authority or the authority empowered to renew the licence at least 30 days before the date on which the licence expires and if the application is so made, the licence shall be deemed to be in force until such date as the licensing authority renews the licence or until an intimation that the renewal of the licence is refused has been communicated to the applicant. In this case that the licence had been renewed can admit no doubt and therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel, that the petitioner has not committed any offence either under the Act or the Rules.