MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Major Jagmal Singh Yadav and Ram Balak Patel, against the order dated Feb. 6, 2009 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4 Deeg Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2008 whereby the trial court framed charges under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against them petitioner No. 1 is Proprietor of M/s. Jagmal Singh and Corporation and petitioner No. 2 is employee in the said firm. The said firm is a license holder firm bearing licence No. E/NC/HN/22/13 (E -10019) HN -159/E which was issued by the Chief Explosive Controller, Northern Region, Faridabad (Haryana) and is dealing in providing explosive for the use of mines in the country. For using explosive under the aforesaid license, the petitioner established site project office at village Luhesar, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur and sought permission to use explosive in the mines at Kaman by to Chief controller of Explosive.
(2.) AS per the condition of the licence, 'Blasting operation was to be carried out between Sunrise and Sunset and under rule 146(4) of the Explosive Rules, 1983 explosive left over after the day's work was to be returned to the licensed premises from which the same were taken. The use of the explosive were to be restricted upto the area from where the same can be returned to the storage magazine before Sunset. The explosive was to be carried out upto the reasonable distance from the magazine from where it can be brought back within day time. As per the rules and conditions of the licence, it was essential to bring back the explosive to the magazine within day time and the explosives was not to be stored at any place other than the licensed magazine and transported in an Explosive Van to the site of blasting. The Police recovered explosive articles from the village Luhesar, Police Station Kaman, for that purpose the petitioners were not having any license. On January 15, 2004, Police Station Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur lodged an FIR No. 22 of 2004 against the petitioners under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 alleging that on inspection at site office of the firm of Major Jagmal Singh, explosives were found there without any license. After investigation, the Police submitted challan against the accused petitioners before the trial court. The trial court vide order dated Feb. 6, 2009 framed charge against the accused petitioners. Hence this revision petition was preferred by the accused petitioners challenging the order of framing charge by the trial court. Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order framing charge against the accused petitioners is bad in the eye of law, against the material and evidence available on record. The trial Court has committed serious illegality in framing charges for the offence under Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against the accused petitioners. Whereas, prima facie on the basis of the prosecution documents itself, no case against the accused petitioners is made out for such offences. Learned Counsel urged that the petitioner No. 1 was granted license by the concerned authorities for using explosive in the mines throughout the country and for village Luhesar, Tehsil Kaman Distt. Bahratpur, the authorised concerned central as well as local authorities granted temporary permission to use the said explosives for mines and the trial court without appreciating the provisions of the Exposive Substances Act framed charge for the offence under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The learned Counsel lastly drawn attention that the charge against the accused petitioners was framed under Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, but actually they have not committed any such offence they have only committed breach of condition of the licence, which was issued under the Explosive Act and Rules. Hence charge framed against the accused petitioners by the trial court dated Feb. 6, 2009 be set aside.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutors appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand opposed the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners and contended that the license was granted by the concerned authorities to the petitioner No. 1 to keep the explosive in the magazine. As per the condition of the licence, 'Blasting operation was to be carried out between Sunrise and Sunset and under Rule 146(4) of the Explosive Rules, 1983 explosive left over after the day's work was to be returned to the licensed premises from where the same were taken. The use of the explosive was to be restricted upto the area from where the same was returned to the storage magazine before Sunset. The explosive was to be carried out upto the reasonable distance from the maganize from where it was brought back within day time. As per the rules and conditions of the licence, it is essential to bring back the explosive to the magazine within day time and the explosives cannot be stored at any place other than the licensed magazine and transported in an Explosive Van to the site of blasting. It is thus clear that prima facie the petitioners contravened the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act and the trial court rightly framed the charge against them.;