TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (3) TMI 265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Judge as follows: (i) Under Section 120B of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, each; (ii) Under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each, and to pay a fine of ₹ 1000 each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months, each; (iii) Under Section 5 (3) (b) of the Explosives Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, each, and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, each; (iv) Under Section 3 read with Section 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months each; (v) Under Section 30 of the Arms Act and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 100/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two weeks, each; (vi) Under Section 6 (1) (a) of the Poisons Act read with Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the said Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, each, and to pay a fine of ₹ 50/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, each. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrentl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... P.W.4 took the powder in the bag and was returning. Police challenged him and seized the bag. Police interrogated him. He told police in presence of the Panchas that he had purchased the powder which was inside of the bag from M.F. Maniyar and got back ₹ 2.50P. P.W.17 searched the cash box in the firm of Fakhruddin and found the ten rupee currency note initialled by him. The shop was searched and 220 grams of Black gun powder was found in the show case. He then alongwith the panchas went up to the first floor. They found black gun powder there also. They found it to be a mixture of potassium chlorate and sulphate used for fire arms. Samples were sealed and one of them was given to appellant, Fakhruddin. A panchnama, Ex.20, was prepared. P.W.17, thought it necessary to send for an expert to identify the powder. He, therefore, posted some constables at the shop, sealed appellants' godowns in Mangalwar Peth and Shukrawar Peth and made panchnamas, Exhibits 22 and 23. Next morning, he sealed both the shops and prepared panchnamas Exhibits 24 and 25. On 13th September, he sent the samples to the Explosives Inspector. On the 14th he lodged a complaint at the Jail Road Police S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns caps. (6) 104 kg. and 500 g. of potassium chlorate. (7) 37.5 kg. of special gelatines. (8) 300 kg. of sulphur. (9) 2496c campion crackers of prohibited size and containing prohibited mixtures. (10) 510 grams of potassium cyanide. (11) About 450 kg. of sulphur. (12) 217 caps like contrivances of the same description as is the case with item No. 5 above. (13) 2500 detonaters. (14) 27 live cartridges, 12 bores, and (15) Mixture of sulphur and potassium chlorate 1/2 kg. Out of these articles, the articles at serial Nos. 1 to 5 were found in the shop of M/s. M.F. Maniyar & Sons. Articles at serial numbers 6 to 11 were found in the clandestine godown situated at 986, Shukarwar Peth at Sholapur on 15.9.1967. Article at serial no. 12 was found on the roof at East Mangalwar Peth, Shukarwar which is adjacent to the shop of M/s.M.F. Maniyar & Sons. Article at serial number 13 were produced by appellant, Taufik, as stated earlier from the compound of their bungalow at 156A, Railway Lines, Sholapur. Articles at serial number 14 consist of 12 bore cartridges found in the house of accused Abdulla Mandolkar (since acquitted). They were alleged to have been delivered by appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 2 of the rules framed under that Act. They have only challenged the conviction and sentences under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Section 120B of the Penal Code. We are, therefore, called upon to examine the correctness or otherwise of the convictions under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 120B of the Penal Code. 9. Let us first consider the conviction under Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act. The Section reads as follows: 5. "Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punishable with transportation for a term which may extend to fourteen years, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a terms which may extend to five years, to which fine may be added" 10. In order to bring home the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, the prosecution has to prove; (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the amendment. On a consideration of the evidence of the Explosives Inspector, and other evidence. the Sessions Judge and the High Court have found, in our opinion correctly, that the substances in question were explosive substances within the definition of the expression. 12. In the instant case, appellant I has admitted, as stated earlier, that these articles were seized from his possession. The evidence also shows that his three sons, appellants 2 to 4, used to manage and run the shop M. F. Maniyar & Sons from which the incriminating substance were seized. 13. It was argued by learned counsel that possession within the meaning of Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act means 'conscious possession'. There can be no doubt about it. The substances seized were not minute or small in quantity. They were in large quantities. In fact half k.g. of the incriminating substance was sold to P. W. 4 by an employee of the firm. The detonators were produced by appellant No. 3 from the premises of the Bungalow occupied by all the occupants. It cannot but, therefore, be held that the appellants were in 'conscious possession' of the substance seized. 14. The notifica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have in his possession an explosive substance; therefore it does seem that it is an ingredient in the offence that he knew it was an explosive substance." With respect, the above decisions lay the correct legal proposition. But the question is whether in his case appellants knew that the substances in question were explosive substances. The knowledge whether a particular substance is an explosive substance depends on different circumstances and varies from person to person. An ignorant man or a child coming across an explosive substance may pick it up out of curiosity and not knowing that it is an explosive substance. A person of experience may immediately know that it is an explosive substance. In the instant case, the appellants had been dealing with the substances in question for a long time. They certainly knew or atleast they shall be presumed to have known what these substances they were and for what purpose they were used. In fact, when P. W. 4 Basanna asked for half k. g. of blasting powder, appellants' servant, accused Chandrakant, immediately supplied the requisite powder to P. W. 4 from the shop. This evidence clearly establishes that the appellants did know t....