NAKUL CHANDRA MAHATO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.1989 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1993 through which the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was maintained and confirmed.

(2.) The fact in short giving rise to this revision is that on 22.10.1978 at about 3 a.m. in the night the informant along with other police officials S.I. Tarni Prasad Yadav ASI Md. Mustafa were on patrolling duty and they were going towards Gohinbandh and had reached near Gohinbandh Railway Crossing they saw one person moving in suspicious circumstances with a bag in hand and seeing the police party he wanted to escape away. It has been alleged that after chase, that man was apprehended and from his possession about 500 grams of Gandhak like materials, 40 grams of potas like materials and two bundles of subtle, were found which were concealed in a bag and the informant suspected these articles to be explosive substance and as such seized and prepared the seizure list in present of the witnesses. Subsequently the seized articles were sent to the Deputy Controller of Explosive who was an Expert of Explosive materials and he examined the same and submitted a report and it was found that she seized articles bear explosive substances and on receipt of the report and after completing the investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution, of accused, charge-sheet was submitted in this case. Initially, after commitment, the case was tried by 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and in the court below, the petitioner-accused claimed himself innocent and denied any recovery of explosive substance from his possession. However, the trial court found petitioner guilty under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act as per the judgment dated 28.2.1983, convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo R.I. for 5 years. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad vide his judgment dated 10.8.1989 dismissed the appeal bearing No. Cr. Appeal 61/83 and affirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to the extent of 2 years R.I. under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal in Cr. A. No. 61 of 1983, this revision application had been preferred by the petitioner-accused. Admittedly the petitioner-accused had been prosecuted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. As on 20-KM978 while some police officials were on patrolling duty apprehended the petitioner in suspicious circumstances in the late hour of night with a bag which was containing about 500 Grams of Sulphur and some quantity of Potas etc. alongwith two bundles of threads meant for preparation of the Explosive substance and as such seizure was made in presence of the witnesses and a written report i.e. Exhibit 4 was submitted on the basis of which this case was instituted. From the evidence of PW 1 Md. Mustafa and that of PW 5 Tarni Prasad Yadav who were the police officers this fact is well proved that on 22.10.1978 at about 3 a.m. in the night while they were on patrolling duty they found this petitioner in suspicious condition and he wanted to escape and so he was apprehended and from his possession Explosive Substance were recovered and a seizure list was prepared i.e. Ext. 3. From the evidence of PW 5, this much is clear that the seized articles were sent to the expert i.e. the Controller of Explosive, Asansole, Ext. 6 is the report of the expert which indicates that an orange-red substance was found to be explosive mixture of chlorate of potassium and sulphide or arsen and according to the expert report, these are explosive substance and prohibited by the Government of India. So this fact is well proved that the petitioner was apprehended along with explosive substance in the alleged night and he kept the same for causing injury to property and there was reasonable suspicion that the possession in such circumstance was for unlawful object and as such the court below was perfectly justified in convincing and sentencing the petitioner under Section 4 and also under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.