THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.4480 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapalli. The petitioner herein is the 4th accused. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet to the effect that on 08-12-2002 some explosive material were found at the stone crusher situated at G.D.Nagar hamlet of Kannala village and the police went there and seized the same. According to the case of the prosecution, A-1 was said to be present along with A-3 and he has deposed that the stone crusher belongs to A-2 and he has taken the lease of the quarry and they are using explosive material for blasting of the stones through Compressor-tractor. The explosive material are said to have been supplied by a person from Sultanabad. The police have recorded the evidence of witnesses during the course of investigation and A- 3 gave a confessional statement and as per the confessional statement, A-4 used to supply the explosive material for blasting and on 02-12-2002 also A-4 has sent the explosive material in a van and they were handed over to him and therefore the charge-sheet has been filed against all the accused persons and the particular allegation against the present petitioner herein is that the petitioner is supplying the explosive material. The present quash petition is filed on the ground that except the confessional statement of A-3, there is no other material to connect the accused with the crime and as such the proceedings against the present petitioner have to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an order in Crl.P.No.1714 of 2008 where-under, in other case, the proceedings in PRC No.36 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrat4e of First Class, Mancherial, Adilabad District were quashed as the case was said to be based only on the confessional statement of the co-accused. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the petitioner herein is the habitual offender and in fact he was convicted for similar offences in other cases and according to him at this stage it is not possible to quash the proceedings. It is true that as can be seen from the charge-sheet the confessional statement is said to have been relied upon by the police. But, however, at the time when the oral interrogation was made at the time of seizure, the identity of the person who has supplied the material was also mentioned. Even other wise, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution case need not be solely based on the charge sheet and in case of necessity, during the trial with the permission of the court, for additional evidence also can be adduced by the prosecution and in such circumstances taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the petitioner/accused being already involved in similar offences and being not submitted to the process of law and absconding, cannot plead for quashing of the proceeding which is rarest of rare cases. I accept the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and I find no merits and the petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed since the guilt or otherwise of the accused can be determined on appreciation of the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 15-07-2011 TSNR