Judgment Das, J. 1. The appellant, Abdul Rahim, has been convicted under Sec. 6, Explosive Substances Act (VI [6] of 1908) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Monghyr. The appeal was originally preferred on behalf of three persons, Abdul Rahim, Noor Mohammad and Jainul. The appeal was dismissed as against the two latter persons, but admitted only so far as Abdul Rahim was concerned. 2. The short facts are these. On 2-6-1947, at about 10.30 P. M. a constable named Lakahmi Singh heard the sound of an explosion from the house of one Qudrat Mian in muhalla Kunjrapati Sadar Bazar of Jamalpur town. The sound which the constable heard appeared to him to be the sound of the explosion of a bomb. The constable informed the officer in charge of the Jamalpur police station. This officer took a police force and, accompanied by the Divisional Inspector and a Magistrate, went to the house In question which consisted of several rooms was occupied by members of many families belonging to different communities. In one of the rooms which was occupied by the present appellant and his brother Noor Mohammad, were found some blood-stained clothes and blood-stained cotton. There were also marks of blood on the floor of the room. Noor Mohammad had some stains of blood on the clothes which he wore. In another room occupied by two other persons, were found two bottles containing explosive powder. Jainul, one of the persons who was arrested as an inmate of the house, had injuries on his person. Next morning one Chamru Mian was found in the room occupied by Noor Mohammad and his brother. Chamru Mian had multiple injuries on his person, injuries caused by the splinters of an exploded bomb. Chamru Mian made a statement, which was recorded by a Magistrate. The two bottles containing powder were subsequently examined by the chemical analyst who found that the powder was explosive powder. 3. Chamru Mian had multiple injuries on his person, injuries caused by the splinters of an exploded bomb. Chamru Mian made a statement, which was recorded by a Magistrate. The two bottles containing powder were subsequently examined by the chemical analyst who found that the powder was explosive powder. 3. On the above facts 19 persons, mostly in-mates of the house, were put upon trial, The learned Sessions Judge acquitted 16 holding that there was no case against them under any of the three sections mentioned in the charge against them, namely, Sections 4, 5 and 6, Explosive Substances Act, With regard to three of the accused persons, namely, Noor Mohammad, Jainul and Abdul Rahim, the learned Sessions Judge found that they were guilty under Sec. 6, Explosive Substances Act. 4. The point which has been urged before me on behalf of the appellant Abdul Rahim is that on the facts found no case has been made out against the appellant. In my opinion, this point is good and should be accepted. So far as Abdul Rahim is concerned, the only fact established by the prosecution is that he and his brother Noor Mohammad occupied a room in the house in which room marks of blood were found. It is not necessary in this appeal to consider the effect of the stains of blood on the clothes of Noor Mohammad. Noor Mohammads appeal was dismissed, and it is unnecessary to consider whether Noor Mohammad came within the mischief of Sec. 6, Explosive Substances Act. That section reads as follows : "Any person who by the supply of or solicitation for money, the providing of premises, the supply of materials, or in any manner whatsoever, procures, counsels, aids, abets, or is accessory to, the commission of any offence under this Act shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence." It is not in dispute that there is no evidence in this case that Abdul Rahim either procured, counseled, aided or abetted the commission of the offence; nor is there any evidence that Abdul Rahim, either supplied the money, or solicited for money, or provided the premises, or supplied the materials, for the commission of any offence under the Explosive Substances Act. Learned counsel for the Crown has raised the point for consideration as to whether Abdul Rahim can be said to be an accessory to an offence either under Sec. 4 (b) or Section 5, Explosive Substances Act. The word accessory has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as a "helper in any act, or one who is privy to it". It is worthy of note that the words procures, counsels, aids, abets or is accessory to come before the words the commission of any offence under this Act. Therefore, the proper meaning of the section must be, in my opinion, that anybody who procures, counsels, aids, abets, or is accessory to the commission of any offence under the Act shall be punished under Sec. 6. Therefore, the question is: Was the present appellant Abdul Rahim accessory to the commission of an offence either under Sec. 4 (b) or Sec. 5, Explosive Substances Act? I have already stated that except one solitary fact that the appellant occupied the same room with his brother Noor Mohammad where marks of blood were found, no other fact has been proved against the appellant. It is also known that the bomb was manufactured or possessed not in the room occupied by Noor Mohammad and his brother, but in some other room, The statement which Chamru Mian, the man who was making the bomb and who later on escaped to Pakistan, made does not mention the name of the present appellant. Chamru Mian had stated there that he and Jainul were making bottle bombs. It seems to me clear on the prosecution case itself that there are no proved facts on which it can be held that the appellant, Abdul Rahim, was an accessory or abettor to the commission of an offence under the Explosive Substances Act. It is true that when the police party searched the house, Abdul Rahim did not say that a bomb had exploded causing injuries to some persons. It is likely that the injured person or persons were brought into the room which the appellant occupied: that would explain the presence of marks of blood in that room. It is true that when the police party searched the house, Abdul Rahim did not say that a bomb had exploded causing injuries to some persons. It is likely that the injured person or persons were brought into the room which the appellant occupied: that would explain the presence of marks of blood in that room. But I do not think that the failure to disclose the explosion of a bomb or that some men have been injured by such an explosion makes the man, who is guilty of such failure, an accessory to the commission of an offence under the Act. Failure to disclose what had happened may be reprehensible, but the question before me is whether such failure necessarily makes the person guilty of such failure, either a helper in the act or a privy to the act which constitutes the offence. In my view, the answer to this question must be in the negative. Further more, there is I think, a well recognised distinction between an accessory to the commission of an offence, and an accessory after the fact. 5 For these reasons, I am of the view that an the facts of the prosecution case itself Abdul Rahim does not come within the mischef of Sec. 6, Explosive Substances Act. The result, therefore, is that the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. It is directed that the appellant, Abdul Rahim, be acquitted, and set at liberty forthwith.