SURESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No. 9771/2017 which is an application for modification in interim order dated 20/12/2018. This court is of the view that this case can be finally decided, so it is not necessary to modify the interim order, as prayed by the petitioner-accused. I.A. No. 9771/2017 is hereby dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case are that on 23/12/2016, a team of Revenue Authority and Forest Department have conducted surprise inspection of mining area situated in Village-Kutehariya and during inspection they have found one Sonalika Tractor bearing registration No. M.P. 21-C/8260 Model DI 730 with compressor machine was parked on government land No. 206 area 5.81 hectare. The driver of the tractor run away from the spot and during search the inspection team found that in alleged tractor Super Power 90 Emission explosions total 149 pieces of detonator with red wire and 42 pieces of detonator with black wire, pressure pipe 53 ft. pressure rod 8 pieces, jhumra 1 piece, one battery etc was loaded. At the spot petitioneraccused was found. Tehsildar Ramjilal Verma, seized these explosive from the petitioner-accused. Seizure memo was pressure was prepared. Petitioner-accused refused to sign on these documents. He refused to tell his father name then Tehsildar Ramjilal Verma sent written complaint to the in-charge Police Station Pavai. FIR was registered, investigation was conducted, explosive and tractor were seized by Tehsildar Ramjilal Verma statements of the witnesses have been recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner-accused and others. Learned trial judge framed aforesaid charges against the petitioner-accused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submits that there is no positive evidence against the petitioner-accused in the present case, therefore, no case under Section 4(b)(1) of Explosive Substance Act 1908 is made out against the petitioner-accused. Learned trial court while framing the charge against the petitioner-accused, has failed to consider the fact that no case is made out for the offence under Section 4(b)(1) of Explosive Substance Act 1908. Alleged tractor is belonging to Gulam Mohammad and Noor Mohammad and they has produced the documents related to ownership of tractor. Explosive and compressor machine have belonging to Gulam Mohammad who has valid license for blasting and they have also produced documents before the competent authority. Petitioner-accused has no relation with the present case because at the time of inspection, petitioner-accused was standing near the tractor and the inspection team without proper inquiry has prepared false case against the petitioner-accused. There is no material of prima-facie belief that petitioner-accused has committed aforesaid offence. There is no evidence that recovered explosive material was produced by the petitioner. The documents which have seized by the prosecution does not show that the petitioner-accused purchased any explosive substance, therefore, learned trial court has without applying judicial mind simply on the basis of averments made in the final report framed aforesaid charges against the petitioner-accused. Learned trial court prima-facie have to see the existence of evidence disclosing commission of crime, as the prosecution of a person without any ground would amount to misuse of process of Court and cause grave injustice to the petitioner. The charge framed by the learned court below is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. So there is no case is made out against the petitioner-accused under Section 4(b)(1) of Explosive Substance Act 1908, so set-aside the impugned order.