Conscious possession of explosive substances and inferred conspiracy upheld, while custodial sentences were reduced for surviving appellants.

Conscious possession of explosive substances was inferred from the recovery of substantial quantities from premises occupied and managed by the appellants, together with evidence that they had dealt with the substances for a long period and knew their nature. The licence relied on did not conform to the applicable government notification, so possession was without lawful authority; the conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was upheld. Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Penal Code was also established because an express agreement was unnecessary and could be inferred from sustained coordinated storage, sale, and handling of the explosive substances; that conviction was upheld. The custodial sentences of the surviving appellants were reduced to the periods already undergone, and the fine under Section 5 was remitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were in conscious possession of explosive substances within the meaning of Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; (ii) Whether the circumstances proved a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Penal Code; (iii) Whether the sentence required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were in conscious possession of explosive substances within the meaning of Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Analysis: The prosecution established that the substances recovered were explosive substances and that they were found in substantial quantities from the shop, godown, and bungalow occupied and managed by the appellants. Possession under Section 5 requires conscious possession, and the evidence showed that the appellants were dealing with the substances for a long period and knew their nature and character. The possession was also without lawful authority, as the licence relied on did not conform to the applicable government notification prohibiting possession of specified explosive mixtures.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was upheld against all the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the circumstances proved a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Penal Code.

Analysis: An express agreement was not required to be proved; the agreement could be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances. The prolonged and coordinated possession, storage, and sale of explosive substances without licence supported the inference that the appellants had agreed to carry out the illegal acts. The evidence also showed participation by the appellants in the business and in the handling of the incriminating substances.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 120B of the Penal Code was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence required modification.

Analysis: The principal role was attributed to the deceased appellant, while the surviving appellants were found to have assisted him. In the interests of justice, the custodial sentences were reduced to the periods already undergone, and the fine imposed under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was remitted.

Conclusion: The sentences were modified in favour of the surviving appellants, but the appeals were otherwise dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were maintained, the custodial punishment was reduced for the surviving appellants, and the fine under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Conscious possession of explosive substances, coupled with circumstances showing absence of lawful object and inferable agreement from sustained coordinated conduct, is sufficient to sustain convictions for the substantive offence and criminal conspiracy.

---