FRANCIS XAVIER SALEMAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted and sentenced under section 9-B (l) (b) of the explosives Act, 1884 (Act, for short) for having been found in possession of 9 non electrical detonators and 31 electrical detonators (item Nos. 25 to 28) , 26 percussion caps (item Nos. 20 and 24) of panchanama Exh. C12 which are explosives as defined under section 4 (d) of the Act.

(2.) The accused was charged and tried under sections 3, 5 r/w section 25 of the arms Act, 1959 and section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in addition to section 9b (l) (a) and (b) of the Explosive Act, 1884, with the allegation that at 13. 00 hours on 1412001, PSI Banudas Desai/ pw14 who at the relevant time was attached to Vasco Police Station had received reliable information that the accused was in possession of illegal fire arms and consequent to the said information the house of the accused was raided and the accused was found with a rifle, revolver, live cartridges, empty cartridges, bullet heads, detonators, percussion caps, etc. , list of which can be seen from the complaint filed by the said PSI Desai/pw14 and produced as Exh. C45.

(3.) To support the charge against the accused, prosecution examined 14 witnesses out of which, two witnesses were declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution but without any benefit to its case. Upon considering the evidence produced, the learned Additional Sessions judge, acquitted the accused under sections 3, 5 r/w 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was given without application of mind and this the learned Additional Sessions judge held inspite of the fact that the sanctioning authority was examined by the prosecution to prove the sanction given. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused under section 7 of the explosive Substances Act, 1908 as there was no valid consent given by the Central government as required under section 7 of the said Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution had chosen not to contest the acquittal of the accused under sections 3, 5 r/w 25 of the Arms Act, section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1905 and section 9b (1) (a) of the Explosive Act, 1884.