IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3775 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.219/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------ BINOY JACOB, AGED 33 YEARS, KANINATH HOUSE, PUNNATHURA EAST, AYARKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :- ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AYARKUNNAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt CRL.M.C.No. 3775 OF 2011 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Annexure I :- Copy of the Final report. Annexure II :- Copy of the search memo prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police. Annexure III :- Copy of the licence. Annexure IV :- Copy of the analyst report issued by the Chemical Examiner, Government of Kerala. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3775 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.219/2011 on the file of J.F.C.M.-I, Kottayam. The charge sheet was laid against him alleging commission of offence under Sec.9(B) (1)(b) of the Explosives Act. The gist of the charge is that when the premises of the petitioner was searched, the petitioner was found in possession of 35 Kgs. of gun powder in violation of the conditions of the licence. Annexure III is the copy of licence issued to him which was renewed from time to time. The search was conducted on 15.12.2010. As per the licence (Annexure III) the petitioner was entitled to manufacture 15 Kgs. of fire works of Class 7 Division 2 Sub Division 1 at any one time per year. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the quantity of fire works the petitioner was entitled to possess would be only less than 15 Kgs. Crl.M.C. No.3775 of 2011 -: 2 :- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what is mentioned in Annexure III licence is the weight of fire works that may be manufactured and not the quantity/weight of the gun powder. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C.No.489 of 2011 dtd.17.3.2011. The facts stated therein are entirely different. There, as per the licence the accused therein was entitled to possess high hazard fire works not exceeding 50 Kgs. But the prosecution had no case that the accused therein had possessed fire works exceeding 50 Kgs. That is not the case here. The seizure mahazar and other documents produced would show that the weight of the gun powder itself was 35 Kgs., but as per the licence issued to him, the quantity possessed should be only 15 Kgs. of fire works. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the weight of the fire works would be far in excess of the gun powder that is actually used for manufacture of fire works. Crl.M.C. No.3775 of 2011 -: 3 :- Here the weight of the gun powder seized is far above the weight of the fire works the petitioner could possess. The contention that the petitioner can possess more than 15 Kgs of gun powder cannot be sustained. Similarly the contention that the quantity/weight of the fire works that can be manufactured making use of 35 Kgs. of gun powder would be less than 15 Kgs is also unreasonable and illogic. Here the difference is not marginal. The quantity possessed by him was about 35 Kgs. Therefore, the contention that the charge against the petitioner cannot be sustained is untenable. In view of what is stated above, I find no reason to quash the proceeding under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt