S.4 Explosive Substances Act Doesn't Apply To Person In Business Of Blasting Rocks Unless 'Malicious Intent To Endanger Life' Shown: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court has partly allowed the discharge petition moved by a person in the business of blasting rocks, booked under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [attempt to cause explosion] for storing explosives in excess of the prescribed limit.Justice K. Surender said that for the provision to be attracted, prosecution must prove that the accused "maliciously" attempted...
The Telangana High Court has partly allowed the discharge petition moved by a person in the business of blasting rocks, booked under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [attempt to cause explosion] for storing explosives in excess of the prescribed limit.
Justice K. Surender said that for the provision to be attracted, prosecution must prove that the accused "maliciously" attempted to cause an unlawful blast and possesed the substance to "endanger life" or cause serious injury.
The bench noted that as per the charge sheet, the accused had procured large amounts of explosive substances and had stored them without taking any precautionary measures causing danger to human life. But, as per the investigation, the authorities concluded that the explosive substances were procured to blast excessive rocks and cover losses that were procured by the accused.
Hence the Bench concluded that despite the explosive substance being over the prescribed limit, there is no malice with the intent to endanger human life.
"It is not the case of the police that the explosives are kept for making an attempt to cause an explosion or keeping explosives with an intention to endanger life or property. Accordingly, Section 3 of the Act of 1908 is not attracted since there is no explosion which was caused even according to the charge sheet. Section 4 punishes any attempt to cause unlawfully and maliciously, further possessing any explosive substance to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property is made punishable. There is no such allegation in the charge sheet," the order stated.
The Bench also noted that as there was no explosion, Section 3 [causing explosion likely to endanger life or property] would not be applicable ab initio.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner had additionally contended that Section 5 of Act [making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances] would also be inapplicable as the accused had not procured the substances under any suspicious circumstances and that Section 286 of IPC [Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance] would be inapplicable as well as mere storing of substance is excess would not constitute elements under the provision.
The Bench conceded that mere storage of excessive explosive substance would not amount to an act of negligence as prescribed under section 286 of IPC.
However Justice Surender observed that the owner (A1) of the site at which the substances were found did not have a valid license and procured the substance from the license of the past owner. This coupled with the large quantities of substances, the bench held, was suspicious and would attract section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
"Not having license to carry on the business of quarrying, however, procuring explosives gives rise to suspicious circumstances as contemplated under Section 5 of the Act of 1908...Minus the confession, explosives were found without there being a valid license with the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the burden is on the accused to show that he had the explosive substances in his possession for lawful object."
With this observation, the Court allowed the petition in part and directed the trial court that the accused may be tried under Section 5 of the Act only.
Case no.: ClRC 566 of 2023
Counsel for petitioner: K Kiran Kumar
Counsel for the respondent: Addl. PP.