minal Appeal No 134 of 1965
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 14 1965 of the Patna High Court in Government Appeal No 25 of 1962
Nur ud din Ahmed and A K Nag for the appellant
D P Singh Anil Kumar and Shivpujan Singh for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State Government and convicting the appellant Mohd Usman under section 5 3 a of the Indian IV of 1884 hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs 2000 in default to undergo rigorous 429 imprisonment for a further period of six months
The High Court however agreed with the Magistrate that the appellant could not be held guilty under section 304A IPC
The High Court did not find the two other accused persons Abdul
Rahinan and Abdul Aziz guilty and State appeals against them were dismissed
The prosecution case in brief is that an explosion occurred in appellant s factory at Matkuria PS Dhanbad on April 28 1960
As a result of the explosion Kashi Bhokta Gobardhan Bhokta and Mohan Bour died
On that day the appellant who manufactures fireworks had allowed minors under 16 years of age viz Kashi Bhokta Guhi Bhokta Gobardhan and Subhas Chamar to work in the manufacture of fireworks thus contravening r 16 of the Explosives Rules 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Rules made under the Act and had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 5 3 a of the Act
The High Court disagreeing with the Magistrate who tried the case held that the three minor boys Kashi Guhi and Subhas were employed and Gobardhan in any event was allowed to enter the premises licensed under the Rules for manufacture of explosives in contravention of r 16 and convicted the appellant as already stated
Section 53 of the Act reads thus Any person contravening the rules made under this section shall be punishable a if he imports or manufactures any explosive in such contravention with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both b if he possesses uses sells or transports any explosive in such contravention with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees or with both and c in any other case with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees
 Rule 16 of the Explosives Rules provides 16
Children and intoxicated persons No child under 16 years of age and no Person who is in a state of intoxication shall be employed on the loading unloading or transport of explosives or be employed in or allowed to enter any premises licensed under these rules
 430 The first question which arises is whether every breach of r I6 falls under section 5 3 a of the Act
In our opinion the answer is in the negative
It will be noticed that cl
a of section 5 3 deals with a person who imports or manufactures in contravention of the Rule cl
b deals with a person who posses uses sells or transports any explosive in contravention of the Rules and cl
c deals with contraventions of the Rules in other
It seems to us that the scheme of this sub section is to divide the contravention of the Rules into three categories
In the first category fall rules which person must observe while he imports or manufactures
In other words rules relatable to the import or manufacture
of explosives would fall in the first category
For example clause 11  of the licence issued to the Not more than four persons shall be allowed at any one time in any one building or tent in which the explosive is being manufactured and only persons actually employed in manufacturing or superintending manufacture shall be allowed inside the place of manufacture
 Clause 12 of the Licence provides No iron or steel implements shall be used in the manufacture
only copper gun metal or wooden tools are permissible
 Now if the appellant had infringed the provisions of the clauses it could be said that the contravention would fall under cl
a of section 53
We may mention that r 81 provides that no explosive shall be manufactured possessed used or sold except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted under these rules and a breach of the conditions would be contravention of r 81
But suppose the appellant had contravened clause 2 of the licence his licence is for the manufacture possession and sale of 25 pounds of fireworks which prescribes the modes in which the explosives shall be kept in the premises ie a in a building substantially constructed of brick stone or concrete or in a securely I constructed fire proof safe or b in an excavation formed in solid rock or earth he would be guilty under cl
b of section 53 and not cl
a of section 53
Similarly a contravention of clause 18 which provides that all sales of explosives under this licence must be effected on the premises described on the face of the licence and an explosive shall not be sold to any person under the age of 16 years would fall under cl
b of section 5 3
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that on the facts found by the High Court the conviction of the appellant 431 under cl
a of section 53 cannot be sustained
He says that there is no finding or evidence that the four minors were engaged to manufacture or were taking part in the manufacture of fireworks
We have gone through the evidence and we find that no witness states that these minor boys were employed by the appellant to manufacture fireworks
Subhas Chamar PW 1 says that he was working in the workshop of explosives at Matkuria owned by Usman 
We were working in the normal manner and in the same place at the time of occurrence
 Puran Bhokta PW 2 father of Kashi and Gobardhan says that all his sons worked in the explosive workshop of Matkuria owned by Usman
 He does not enlighten us about the nature of work done by his sons
Guhi Bhokta PW 8 only states that about 18 months ago on a Thursday I was working in the explosive shop in village Matkuria under the supervision of Rahman accused
There is no other evidence bearing on this point
From this evidence it cannot be definitely inferred that the four minors were actually employed in the manufacture of explosives on April 28 1960
In fact there is no evidence at all that any fireworks were being manufactured that day
It was for the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence and section 106 of the Evidence Act does not as contended by the learned counsel for the State absolve the prosecution from proving its case
There is no doubt that there has been a contravention of r 16 inasmuch as the four minors were employed in or allowed to enter the premises licensed under the Rules
But r 16 is a comprehensive rule and applies to employment of minors in the premises for various purposes manufacture and sale of explosives it would also apply to employment of a minor to sweep floors and keep the premises clean
If a minor is employed to keep clean the premises would this contravention fall under cl
a cl
b or cl
c of section 53 It seems to us that if cl
a and cl
b are read widely so as to cover every activity which might take place on the premise cl
c would be rendered redundant
This is not a permissible way of reading statutes
If will be noticed that the legislature regards an offence under cl
a of section 53 to be more serious than one under cl
b and an offence under cl
b to be more serious than one under cl
Further the rules are many some regulate minor matters and if would be absurd to treat the breach of every rule to be a breach of cl
a or cl
In our opinion if there is a breach of a rule it has to be ascertained in each case whether the rule or part of it relates to activities mentioned in cl
a of section 53 or cl
b of section 53
If it does not relate to any of the activities mentioned in cl
a 432 or cl
b of section 5 3 the breach of the rule would fall under cl
c of section 5 3
In this case the prosecution has not proved that the four minors were employed in any of the activities mentioned in cl
a or cl
b of section 5 3
Nor has it proved that any manufacture of fireworks was done on April 28 1960
It follows that the contravention of r 16 on the facts found can only come under cl
c of section 5 3
We may mention that the learned counsel for the appellant challenged the findings of fact made by the High Court but in our opinion they are not vitiated in any manner
In the result the appeal is partly allowed
The conviction is altered to one under cl
c of section 5 3 of the Act and the
appellant is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months
Fine if paid in excess shall  be refunded
YP Appeal partly allowed


Summary:
The appellant a manufacturer of fireworks was convicted under section 5 3 of the Indian as he had allowed minors to work in the manufacture of fireworks thus contravening r 16 of the Explosives Rules
HELD Clause a of section 53 deals with a person who imports or manufactures in contravention of the Rules el
b deals with a person who possesses uses sells or transports any explosive in contravention of the Rules and el
c deals with the contravention of the Rules in other cases
If there is a breach of a rule it has to be ascertained in each case whether the rule or part of it relates to activities mentioned in el
a of section 53 or el
b of section 53
If it does not relate to any of the activities mentioned in el
a or cl3b of section 53 the breach of the rule would fall under cl
c of section 53 
430 A B 431 H In this case though it was established that the minors were employed in or allowed to enter the premises it was not proved that the minors were employed in any of the activities mentioned in el
a or el
b of section 53
Nor it has been proved that any manufacture of fireworks was done on that day
So the contravention of r 16 on the facts found could only be punishable under el
e of section 53
432 B