Case: Lopchand Naruji Jat  Vs. State Of Gujarat

2. In a nutshell the background facts are as follows:On 20.4.1988, the appellants came to Surat from Indore and were intercepted by the police at the bus stand. They were found to be in possession of 180 detonators. A criminal case no.4 of 1990 was registered against the appellants-accused. They were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 9-B(i) (b) of the Act and Section 5 of the Terrorists & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (in short the TADA). By judgment and order dated 12.10.1998 of the Trial Court, the accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA. However, they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 9-B(i) (b) of the Act and were sentenced as aforesaid.3. In the appeal before the High Court stand of the appellants was that without prior sanction of the Central Government for prosecution the proceedings were illegal. It was also submitted that article recovered from the appellants cannot be said to be explosives and, therefore, also the appellants could not have been convicted. As there was no independent evidence and only the evidence of the investigation officer was relied upon, the conviction should not have been made. Residually it was submitted that the appellants had faced trial for about 10 years and should not have been convicted with punishment of custodial sentence as Section 9-B(i) (b) itself provides that fine only can be imposed. Respondent-States stand was that no sanction was necessary under the Act. The report of the Controller of Explosive, Baroda, clearly indicated that the substance recovered from the appellants was explosive of Class 2 as prescribed in Schedule I to the Explosives Rules 1983 (in short the Rules) as well as Explosive of Class 6 as defined in the said Schedule. A licence is obligatory for possession, transportation and use of the explosive. Since the substance recovered was an explosive as defined in Section 4(d) of the Act and no licence was detained, the conviction as well-merited. Learned Single Judge, held that no sanction was necessary under the Act for prosecution. The article recovered were explosives and keeping in view the factual background the sentence as imposed was in order.

Reasoning: 5. It is to be noted that the plea relating to sanction is based on confusion between two statutes i.e. The Act and the Explosive substances Act 1908 (in short the Explosive Substances Act). Prior sanction for prosecuting any person is provided under the Explosive Substances Act and there is no corresponding provision in the Act. Therefore, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in rejecting the plea.As per established prosecution version 180 nos. of ammunition dynamites were found in possession of the accused. Courts below have on evidence tendered found that Ammonium tubes with electrical red wire were recovered. These articles are undisputedly covered by class-6 as quoted above.8. The substances recovered from the appellants clearly come within the definition of "explosive" as per Section 4(d) of the Act. When the investigating officer was found to be trustful and in spite of incisive cross-examination, nothing material has been that brought to discredit his evidence, the Trial Court was justified in recording conviction on his evidence alone.9. Coming to the plea about the sentence it would be relevant to note that 180 detonators were seized. The value thereof has been fixed by the prosecution as Rs.900/-. The quantity seized clearly disproves the plea that the seized articles were intended to be used for digging wells. The detonators were found to be of a company at Rourkela in Orissa, and were seized far away at Surat. The fact that the accused persons tried to run away when police wanted to apprehend them is a significant factor.