Judgment H.K.Chaudhuri, J. 1. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge for Jamshedpur has convicted the appellant under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. 2. The prosecution case was that at about 10-30 p.m. while Ramkrit Singh (P.W. 9), a constable attached to Golmuri police station an the town of Jamshedpur, was proceeding to his standpost duty he found the appellant lying on a pucca platform known as Golchakkar near the railway bridge. On being questioned as to why he was there at such a late hour the appellant said that he was waiting there to meet a person from the factory. The constable told him that all the factory people had gone away & the appellant should go and stay at the railway platform. As the appellant rose to go with his jhola the constable enquired what the Jhola contained. The appellant replied that it contained clothes and a bomb. On being asked to show the contents of the jhola the appellant showed the constable "two wires and two pieces of masala". He added that the articles could be used to blow up a building in a moment. The constable thereupon took the appellant to Jug-salai thana and handed him over to Sub-Inspector Nazir Pandey, the officer-in-charge. The Sub-Inspector found two jholas one, a small one, inside a bigger jhola. The explosive materials found in the jhola consisting of (1) one full cartridge of Special Gelatine of 75 per cent strength, (2) one 1/8th cartridge of Special Gelatine of 75 per cent strength, and (3) two ordinary detonators attached with safety fuse, one measuring 51" and the other measuring 52". The sub-Inspecter recorded a station diary and seized the articles. On the next day he got the articles examined by the Superintendent, Scrap and Salvage of the Tata Indian and Iron Steel Company. That officer reported that the materials were high explosives and were the products of Messrs. Imperial Chemical Industries Limited. Another station diary entry was made by the Sub-Inspector after this report was received. It was on the basis of these two station diaries that the first information report of this case was drawn up on 15-10-55. After completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The appellant admitted his arrest by the constable. It was on the basis of these two station diaries that the first information report of this case was drawn up on 15-10-55. After completing investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The appellant admitted his arrest by the constable. He, however, denied that the jhola containing the explosive materials belonged to him. His defence was that while he was moving about near the Golchakkar the constable came to the scene and drove away the people who were then sleeping there. It was suggested that one of those persons had very probably left his jhola there. The allegation was that the constable meeting the appellant asked his name and address and finding that he was an outsider took him to the thana. He finally stated that the Sub-Inspector had implicated him falsely in this case because he had enmity with his uncle Joti Mandal, who was a pleaders clerk at Jamshedpur. 4. There is no dispute that the articles seized were high explosives and that the appellant did not hold any license for carrying such articles. So far as the recovery is concerned, this is proved by the constable and two other witnesses, Md. Mahmood (P.W. 7) and Shital Prasad Mallah (P.W. 8), two employees of the Tata factory. I have already referred to the evidence of constable Ramkrit Singh (P.W. 9) while narrating the prosecution case. Md. Mahmood (P.W. 7) has deposed that while coming back from duty at about 10-30 p.m. he found the constable questioning the appellant. On being interrogated by the constable the appellant opened his jhola which contained clothes and some other articles. Referring to those articles the appellant told the constable that they were meant for blasting stones and buildings. Shital Prasad (P.W. 8) also stated that while returning from duty he found an assemblage of persons at the Golchakkar near the railway bridge and the constable interrogating the appellant. The witness further said that the appellant told the constable that the jhola contained gun powder for blasting stones. 5. The evidence of Md. Mahmood and Shital Prasad Mallah (P.Ws. 7 and 8) has been criticized on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the station diary dated 13-10-55. The omission, however, admits of explanation. The witness further said that the appellant told the constable that the jhola contained gun powder for blasting stones. 5. The evidence of Md. Mahmood and Shital Prasad Mallah (P.Ws. 7 and 8) has been criticized on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the station diary dated 13-10-55. The omission, however, admits of explanation. The constable had no idea at that stage as to whether the appellant had actually committed any offence. Even the Sub-Inspector of the thana was not sure about it. He sent the articles to an expert attached to the Scrap and Salvage Department of the Company and deferred action until receipt of his report. It was after the report of the local expert was received that the Sub-Inspector started a case and took up investigation. Apparently, it was at that stage that the question as to whether the incident has been seen by others also arose. Further, the constable has deposed that he knew the two witnesses by face only. He met them on the following day and brought them to the thana. Being a constable, performing his duties at a standpost on one of the thoroughfares of the town, it is not unlikely that he should have known by face some of these Tata employees passing that way daily at regular hours. It has been pointed out that Shital Prasad (P.W. 8) stated in his evidence that the constable knew him both by name and address. The constable himself, however, states that although he knew the face and house of the witness he did not know his name. The witnesss impression that the constable also knew his name may be wrong. 6. Learned counsel for the defence contended that very likely the constable finding it necessary to produce witnesses in support of his story just met these two witnesses by accident on the following day and later got them examined by the Sub-Inspector as eye-witnesses. I am not impressed with this contention. The circumstances indicate that the need for producing some of the persons who had seen the occurrence was not felt at the initial stage when the appellant had not been charged with any specific offence. This, however, is no ground for holding that the two witnesses who were actually examined on 15-10-55, were suborned witnesses. There is nothing to indicate that the police had any hold on these persons. This, however, is no ground for holding that the two witnesses who were actually examined on 15-10-55, were suborned witnesses. There is nothing to indicate that the police had any hold on these persons. They are employees of the Tatas and there in no reason why they should have agreed to play into the hands of the police and perjure themselves merely at the request of a constable. 7. The defence story that the jhola containing the explosive substances were left at the spot by some person lying on the pucca platform is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The constable has stated that the appellant was alone on the Golchakkar when he met him. Md. Mahmood (P.W. 7) has stated that when he reached the spot he found the jhola in the hand of the appellant. When Shital Prasad (P.W. 8) reached the spot he found the jhola kept by the side of the appellant who was then sitting. Further, the uniform evidence of all these witnesses is that the appellant on being interrogated stated on the spot that the jhola contained articles which could be used for blasting purposes. I do not see any sufficient reason for discarding all this evidence. I hold that the learned judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant knowingly had in his possession high explosives. The plea of the appellant that he had been implicated falsely at the instance of the officer-in-charge, who admittedly was on bad terms with one Joti Mandal, a pleaders clerk, is worthless. It appears that there was a judicial enquiry in connection with certain allegations against this Sub-Inspector. The Sub-Inspector has stated that Joti Mandal was a witness for the complainant in that case. There is, however, absolutely nothing to show that the appellant had any connection with Joti Mandal. 8. Learned counsel has next argued that at best the prosecution can be said to have proved that the appellant was in conscious possession of the incriminating objects. It is urged that mere conscious possession of these objects is not sufficient to bring the charge home to the appellant. There is force in this contention. Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act provides as follows : "Any person who ....... knowingly has in his possession ..... any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he ...... There is force in this contention. Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act provides as follows : "Any person who ....... knowingly has in his possession ..... any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he ...... does not have it in his possession ... for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he. ...... had it in his possession ...... for, a lawful object, be punishable ......". It is pointed out that there is no evidence in this case to show that the incriminating articles were recovered in this case under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the appellant did not have them in his possession for a lawful object. In R. V/s. Hallam, (1957) 1 All ER 665, Section 4(1) of the corresponding English Act was construed by Lord Goddard, C. J. The words of that section are similar to those of Sec. 5 of the Indian Act. The question directly at issue in that case was whether the word "knowingly" meant that the accused must know not only that he had a parcel or a substance in his possession but also that it was an explosive. It was held that the clear meaning of the section was that the person not only knowingly had in his possession the substance but must know that it was an explosive substance. It was then observed that if evidence was given that the person had the substance in his possession, and some evidence of circumstances which givo rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had got it for a lawful purpose was given, the jury were then entitled to infer that he knew it was an explosive substance. I may quote his Lordships words : "We think the proper direction to give to a jury in this case is that they must first of all be satisfied that he had the substance in his possession. Secondly, they must be satisfied that it was in his possession in circumstances such as to givo rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had it in his possession not for a lawful object .... .". This second ingredient is completely lacking in this case. Secondly, they must be satisfied that it was in his possession in circumstances such as to givo rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had it in his possession not for a lawful object .... .". This second ingredient is completely lacking in this case. The prosecution has led no evidence to show that there are any circumstances in this case to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the appelant had incriminating articles in his possession not for a lawful object. The only thing alleged on behalf of the prosecution was that the appellant was an outsider. The appellant is either a Bengali or an Oriya. It is somewhat difficult to treat the presence of a member of either of these two communities in a town like Jamshedpur as a suspicious circumstance. According to the evidence of the prosecution itself, the appellant never tried to conceal the contents of his Jhola. If he was in possession of the incriminating objects not for a lawful object he would not have so readily disclosed the contents of his jhola or the nature of the objects as readily as he is reported to have done. I am, therefore, of opinion that there being no proof that the incriminating objects were recovered from the possession of the appellant in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had them in his possession not for a lawful object the charge under Sec. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act is not sirstainable against him. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed upon him are set aside.