IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.384 of 2008 SOHARAI RAM & ORS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 6 6.5.2009 This writ petition has been filed for quashing the first information report of Rohtas P.S. case no. 28 of 2008 registered under section 9 (B), 9(C) of the Explosive Substance Act. The first information report shows that there was a secret information that some explosive substance have been made available to the extremists from Banjari and the same are being used by them for explosion of land mine. To verify that fact the Executive Magistrate and Subdivisional Police Officer, Dehri visited the Magzine of Kalyanpur Cement Limited, Banjari on 23.4.2008. On 24.4.2008, officer-in-charge, Rohtas Police Station, Police Inspector, Amjhore visited the Magazine of Banjari Lime stone Mines which was found locked. On returning from the Magzine, they met with one Raj Narain Singh who introduced himself as Carrier of the Banjari Line stone Mines. Even though requests were made but registers were not produced. In the meantime, information was received that extremists have stored a huge quantity of explosive in the nearby village, which was raided in the night of 25/26.4.2008. Despite information sent to produce register of explosive, no one of Banjari Lime Stone Mines came or produced the register. In presence of the Executive Magistrate, and Block Development Officer inventory of the explosive substance lying in the magazine of Banjari Line Stone Mines was prepared. But stock register, receipt and consumption registere etc. were not found - 2 - there. No any display board showing the Licence number, stock position etc. was kept there and on that basis police case was registered. Contention of the petitioner is that the first information report is vague and the inspection was not conducted by the authorized officer. But in the counter affidavit it is stated that on 24.4.2008 while the inventory was prepared the Executive Magistrate, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Block Development Officer and the Officer-in-charge were present.. The petitioner has violated the rules and conditions of licence because as per the terms and conditions of explosives, licensee has to display prominently and clearly in writing (1) the licence number, (ii) stock position and (iii) daily stock opening a balance etc. The licensee has violated the above conditions and above information were not exhibited at all. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that subsequently stock register was produced. Whether stock register was subsequently manipulated or not is a matter of investigation which shall be looked into later on.. When the raid was conducted on getting information that extremists are being made available of explosive and inventory was prepared by the authority, in my opinion it is not a case where the first information report could be quashed at the inception. It cannot be stated that the allegations mentioned in the FIR, are not proved. Therefore, no case is made out for quashing the first information report or investigation at the inception. It is for the petitioner to give all defence before the Investigating Officer and to - 3 - apply for anticipatory bail or bail as the case may be. The writ petition is dismissed. (J.B. Koshy, CJ) M.Rahman