NATHU RAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Nathu Ram who has been convicted under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act (6 of 1908), by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Etawah and sentenced to four years and six months R.I. Mr. K.N. Agarwala appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken me through the entire record. Before I deal with the question of fact as to whether the evidence on the record justifies the conviction of the appellant, I should dispose of certain questions of law advanced by learned Counsel. It is said that because of Section 7, Explosive Substances Act, the learned Magistrate who committed the accused to the Court of Session should not have taken cognizance of the case without the consent of the Local Government. That provision of law runs as follows: No Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Local Government or the Governor-General in Council.

(2.) It is conceded that no such consent was obtained while the case was being inquired into in the Court of the committing Magistrate. It is however conceded by the defence that when the case proceeded to trial in the Court of Session the consent of the Local Government was obtained. I am of the opinion that it was not necessary for the prosecution to obtain the sanction of the Local Government while the case was in the stage of an inquiry. I am fortified in my view by the case of Emperor V/s. Kallappa 1927 Bom. 21. It was then argued that the sanction that was obtained from the Local Government was for the prosecution of the appellant under Section 4-B, of the said Act, and the learned Sessions Judge was not competent to frame a charge in the alternative under Section 5 of the said Act, and later on to convict the appellant under Section 5. The position therefore is that the accused was being tried of an offence which was covered by the sanction and under the provisions of Section 236, Criminal P.C., the learned Sessions Judge upon perusing the commitment order framed a charge in the alternative under Section 5 as well. Moreover, even if the learned Sessions Judge had not framed a charge under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act, he could, under the provisions of Section 237 Criminal P.C., have convicted the appellant under section 5, although he was charged under Section 4-B alone. I am therefore of the opinion that there is no force in the two contentions of law advanced before me.

(3.) Coming to the facts of the case it appears that on 20 March 1933, Thakur Arjun Singh, the Sub-Inspector of Airwa Katra, was investigating into the theft of a cycle and in the course of his investigation his suspicion fell on Nathu Ram. He therefore proceeded to the house of Nathu Ram and he had in his company three respectable witnesses, Raja Ram, Pyare Lal and Manjan Singh. Ha was also accompanied by two Constables. They reached the house of Nathu Ram and subjected themselves to being searched by him. They then entered the house, did not find any incriminating article in a marha, but later on proceeded towards a verandah which had a room in a corner. This room was locked and it was opened by Nathu Ram with the help of a key tied to his sacred thread. Inside the room was a box and this box again was opened by a key supplied by Nathu Ram. From the box were recovered a number of articles which have been proved to the complete satisfaction of the Court below and myself, by the evidence of the Inspector of Explosives, to be explosive substances. If the prosecution witnesses are reliable then there can be no doubt that the conviction of the appellant under Section 5 is sound.