-1- Criminal Appeal No.252-SB of 1999. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.252-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: January 13, 2010. Amar Nath ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Tarunvir Vashisht, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.2.1999 and the sentence order dated 22.2.1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby appellant Amar Nath was convicted under -2- Criminal Appeal No.252-SB of 1999. Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884 (for short `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Vinod Kumar, co-accused of appellant Amar Nath, was however acquitted of the charge framed against him. I have heard Mr. J. S. Bedi, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Tarunvir Vashisht, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Haryana, and have gone through the records of the case. The charge under Section 9B of the Act, which was framed by the learned trial Judge against the appellant on 24.2.1998, reads as under:- “ That on 16.4.1996, in your factory premises, situated in the area of village Samargopalpur, you in furtherance of the common intention of you both, were found manufacturing explosive i.e crackers, sparklers, Phuljari etc. without any valid licence and thus you contravened the provision of Section 6 of the Explosives Act, 1884, punishable under Section 9-B of the Explosives Act and within the cognizance of this Court.” -3- Criminal Appeal No.252-SB of 1999. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 9B of the Act. From a perusal of the charge, reproduced above, it is revealed that the accused-appellant cannot be attributed the intention to cause explosion with intent to cause injury to life or property as he was found manufacturing crackers, sparklers, Phuljari etc. In fact, there is no such allegation against the appellant nor any evidence to this effect has been led by the prosecution. The prosecution case itself is that the appellant was only manufacturing crackers, sparklers, Phuljari etc. which are meant for festivals. Admittedly,the appellant had no licence for manufacture, possession and sale of sparklers etc. He had only applied for the licence, but had not been granted licence for the same. There are the statements of Tehsildar J.K. Ahuja (P.W.6) and Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) that the aforesaid explosive material was recovered from the factory of appellant Amar Nath. Raw material for manufacturing sparklers etc. was also recovered from the spot. Both Tehsildar J.K. Ahuja (P.W.6) and Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar (P.W.7) had no enmity against the accused. Their statements are creditworthy and no motive can be attributed to them to falsely implicate the accused. As such, the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 9B of the Act. In view of the above, the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge is upheld. -4- Criminal Appeal No.252-SB of 1999. So far as the sentence is concerned, the occurrence relates to April, 1996. The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court in February, 1999. This appeal was admitted in March, 1999. The Sword of Damocles has, thus, been hanging over the head of the appellant for more than thirteen and a half years. Section 9B of the Act prescribes punishment for the offence committed by the appellant either imprisonment or fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or with both. As noticed above, besides imprisonment the appellant has been imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the sentence order calls for interference. The ends of justice will be adequately met with if the appellant, by setting aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years awarded to him by the trial Judge vide the impugned judgment, is burdened with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- beside the fine of Rs.5,000/- already imposed by the trial Judge. I order accordingly. The litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- and the amount of fine of Rs.5,000/-, if not already deposited, shall be deposited by the appellant in the trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for getting the fine, if not already paid by the appellant, and -5- Criminal Appeal No.252-SB of 1999. the costs of litigation, recovered from the appellant. January 13, 2009. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE