- (1.) AN explosion took place on June 9, 1962, in the Fire Works Factory of M/s. Abdul Gani Mulabux, Jodhpur. Manzoor Ahmad and Mukhtiar Ali were the partners of the concern, in which crackers and other articles of fire works were manufactured. As a result of the explosion one labourer Gaffar was badly injured. He was taken to the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, for treatment. Mukhtiar Ali went to the hospital and removed Gaffar therefrom. Mukhtiar Ali kept Gaffar in the factory premises. Two days later the injured died. His dead body was taken to Chanod without delay and was secretary burried there Mukhtiar Ali took all these steps with a view to cause the relevant evidence of explosion to disappear. Neither Mukhtiar Ali nor Manzoor Ahmad furnished any information to the police regarding this occurrence. On June 16, 1962, S. H. O. , Raghunath Singh of the Police Station, Sardarpura, through some secret source, came to know that an explosion had occurred in the above factory and that one labourer Gaffar had been hurt. He recorded the information in his diary and commenced investigation. The site was inspected by the police and after the investigation was over, Manzoor Ahmad and Mukhtiar Ali were challened in the Court of Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur City under secs. 304 and 201 I. P. C. as also under sec. 5 (9) and (b), read with sec. 8 of the Indian Explosion Act, 1884. Learned Magistrate scrutinised the relevant papers and after ascertaining that as there was no prima facie case against the accused for an offence under sec. 304 I. P. C. , he dropped charge under that section. The magistrate, however, conducted trial under the rest of the aforesaid provisions of law. Charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty. In support of its case the prosecution examined 24 witnesses. In his statement, recorded under sec. 342 I. P. C. , Manzoor Ahmad denied to have committed any offence. The accused Mukhtiar Ali also in his statement under Sec. 342, Cr. P. C. made a total denial of the offences with which he was charged. The accused examined three witnesses in their defence. The trial court acquitted Mukhtiar Ali of all the charges. He also acquitted Manzoor Ahmad of offences under sec. 201 I. P. C. and sec. 8 of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. He however convicted him under sec. 5 (3) (c) of the Indian Explosives Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 51/ -. AN appeal was taken against that judgment to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, but the same was dismissed, on November 29, 1967. Hence this revision.
(2.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for petitioner is that sec. 5 of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, would came into operation only when the accused is charged with the contravention of any of the Rules. The charge-sheet framed against the petitioner does not mention any specific rule for the contravention of which the petitioner could be held guilty. What is mentioned in the charge sheet is that the terms No. 10 and 13 of the licence had been contravened, and as there is no provision in the Act that the breach of the terms of the licence is punishable, the accused under sec. 5 (3) (c) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. Sec. 5 (3) (c) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884, provides that any person contravening the rules made under the section shall be punishable in a case other than that mentioned in cl. (a) and (b) with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. Relevant part of R. 93 of the Explosives Rules, 1940, reads as follows - "93. Suspension and cancellation of licence - (1) Every licence granted under these rules shall liable to be suspended or cancelled by order of the licensing authority for any contravention of the Act or of any rule thereunder or of any condition contained in such licence, or by order of the Central Government if at any time the continuance of the licence in the hands of the licensee is deemed objectionable. " If conditions Nos. 13 and 10 of the licence were in fact contravened, the only conclusion thereof would be the suspension or cancellation of the licence and the accused could not be visited with the punishment provided under sec. 5 (3) (c) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. Sec. 5 (3) (c) no where lays down that breach of the terms of licence will also be punishable to the extent mentioned therein: See Tadikonda vs. State (1 ). The provisions of sec. 5 (3) (c), Indian Explosives Act, 1884, are penal in nature and it is a well settled rule of construction of penal statutes that if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put down a penal provision, the court must lean towards that construction which extempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. It is not competent to the Court to stretch the meaning of the expression beyond the fair and ordinary meaning of its language: vide L. & NE. Rly. Co. vs. Berriman (2 ). Learned counsel representing the State Government has not been able to cite any rule for the contravention which the petitioner might be held to have been guilty. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the accused Manzoor Ahmad is acquitted of the charge under sec. 5 (3) (c) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. .;