Obul Reddi, J.-These two appeals, Crl. A. No. 286 of 1970 preferred by the State and Crl. A. No. 887 of 1969 preferred by the two appellants (A-1 and A-2), arise out of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in S.C. No. 62 of 1969 on his file. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these two appeals, may be briefly set out. A section of the students joined the agitation started for a separate State for Telangana area. The Commissioner of Police had issued prohibitory orders banning all kinds of meetings and processions without his prior permission. A meeting of “Telangana Praja Samithi” was held on 6th April, 1969 and there was police bandobust to prevent any untoward incident. The case of the prosecution is that A-1, A-2 and A-4 had conspired to hurl explosives at the police parties stationed for ‘bandobust’ in the disturbed areas of Secunderabad. These three accused sought the co-operation of A-3 who is said to have experience in the preparation of explosives. Pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by A-1 to A-4, they obtained the necessary material for preparation of bombs or explosives, and are said to have made 13 country-bombs. Pursuant to the conspiracy and also in furtherance of the common object, A-1, A-2 and A-5 are said to have thrown bombs on a police-van stationed at Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad, causing injury to a wireless-operator and damage to the van. A case was registered against them under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. Another incident took place on 20th April, 1969 at about 8-30 p.m. when A-1 and A-2, in furtherance of their common object, are said to have thrown two country-bombs on the Central Reserve Police men stationed at R.M.S. Office, Secunderabad, causing injuries to some constables. A case was also registered against them under section 307, Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. The third incident was on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th May, 1969. That was also the result of the conspiracy to which A-1 and A-2 were parties. A-1 and A-2 threw two bombs on a police-van and that resulted in the death of a Constable by name Syed Farooq Ali, and injuries to a Head Constable. As a result of the explosion, damage was caused to the police-van too. That was also the result of the conspiracy to which A-1 and A-2 were parties. A-1 and A-2 threw two bombs on a police-van and that resulted in the death of a Constable by name Syed Farooq Ali, and injuries to a Head Constable. As a result of the explosion, damage was caused to the police-van too. A case was registered against A-1 and A-2 under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. The 5th City Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was laid against A-1 to A-5, committed them to take their trial in the Court of Sessions at Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge framed as many as 16 charges against the accused but he found, on a scrutiny of the evidence on record, that except charge No. 16, the other charges were not made out by the prosecution and, therefore, he acquitted the accused of the rest of the charges and while acquitting A-3 to A.-5, he convicted A-1 and A-2, against whom charge No. 16 was framed, under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced each of them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment. It is against their convictions and sentences that A-1 and A-2 have preferred the appeal (Crl.A. No. 887 of 1969). The appeal preferred by the State (Crl.A. No. 286 of 1970) is against the acquittal of A-3 and A-2 under charges Nos. 10, 12 and 14. 3. The charge No. 10 relates to causing the death of Syed Farooq Ali, a Constable of the Central Arm Reserve by A-1 and A-2, by hurling explosives i.e., two country bombs, on the police-van in which he was on duty, on the intervening night of 3rd and 4th May, 1969. Under charge No. 12, A-1 and A-2 are indicted under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to cause the death of a Constable by name Syed Mohd. Hussain. The charge No. 14, refers to A-1 and A-2 using explosive substances, i.e., two country bombs, by hurling them on the police-van, which resulted in causing damage to the policevan. Therefore, they were charged under section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. 4. Hussain. The charge No. 14, refers to A-1 and A-2 using explosive substances, i.e., two country bombs, by hurling them on the police-van, which resulted in causing damage to the policevan. Therefore, they were charged under section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. 4. Before adverting to the appeal preferred by the State, it may be necessary to deal with the appeal preferred by A-1 and A-2, The case of the prosecution against the appellants, A-1 and A-2, rests entirely on the statements which each of them (A-1 and A-2) made under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the recoveries made in consequence thereof by the investigating officers, in addition to the opinion expressed by the Inspector of Explosives that the objects recovered and sent to him for examination, contained explosive substances. 5. A-1 was arrested by P.W.52, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, on 7th May, 1969 and after arresting him, he handed him over to P.W.53 the Inspector, C.C.S. Team 1. On 4th May, 1969, P.W.52 received a telephonic message regarding explosion in Secunderabad area. Under his instructions P.W.53, the Inspector of Police, conducted a panchanama of the damage caused to the police-van as a result of the explosion. P.W.53 registered the F.I.R. in the case. After A-1 was handed over to him, and before he interrogated him, he sent for two panchas, P.W.33, and another by P.W.33, A-1 came out with the statement which P.W.53 reduced into writing. This statement is Exhibit P-44 and it reads: "If you follow I will get the bomb recovered from my house ..........." A-1 then led P.W.53, P.W.33 and another to his house. There A-1 entered one of the rooms of his house, picked up a key from underneath a tin-box, opened a tin-box and produced from that tin-box M.O. 15. This was seized by P.W.53 under Exhibit P-45 attested by P.W.33 and another. Then M.O. 15 was put in a container and sealed. P.W.53 then entrusted the sealed tin containing M.O. 15 to the Central Crime Station for safe custody under police-guard. 6. We may now refer to the recoveries made at the instance of A-2. P.W.51 is the Inspector of Police working in the Central Crime Station who apprehended A-2 at about 3-00 p.m. on 8th May, 1969. At about 3-15 p.m. he sent for two witnesses, (P.W.34 and another) and in their presence interrogated A-2. 6. We may now refer to the recoveries made at the instance of A-2. P.W.51 is the Inspector of Police working in the Central Crime Station who apprehended A-2 at about 3-00 p.m. on 8th May, 1969. At about 3-15 p.m. he sent for two witnesses, (P.W.34 and another) and in their presence interrogated A-2. A-2 then came out with a statement which P.W.51 recorded and the admissible portion of it is Exhibit P-46 and it reads: "If you follow me I will point out the said six bombs concealed by me..." We may, at this stage, point out that Mr. Mathews, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants (A-1 and A-2), sought to contend that Exhibits P-44 and P-46 cannot be strictly construed as statements admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. We shall consider his aspect of the case at the appropriate stage, if necessary. 7. After the statement was recorded by P.W.51, A-2 led P.W.51, P.W.34 and another to his house. There, the accused made them follow to the kitchen portion of his house and there he dug out the earth, and showed them "six bombs buried there". All these six objects recovered from the house of A-2 were put in a tin and sealed in the presence of P.W.34 and another. Exhibit P-47 is the Panchanama written on that occasion. P.W.34 says that no slip of paper with his signature and the signature of the other witness was affixed to he objects recovered at the instance of A-2, but a slip was attached to the tin in which the six objects were kept and sealed and he had signed that slip. 8. We may, at this stage refer to section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act under which A-1 and A-2 have been convicted and sentenced and its application. 8. We may, at this stage refer to section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act under which A-1 and A-2 have been convicted and sentenced and its application. It reads: "Any person who makes of knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punishable with transportation for a term which may extend to fourteen years, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, to which fine may be added." Under this section, it is enough if the prosecution is able to establish that a reasonable suspicion exists against an accused-person that he has made, or knowingly has in his possession, or under his control, any explosive substance and that, he is not in possession of such substance for any lawful object. The burden is upon the accused person, once it is shown that what he made or was in his possession is an explosive substance, to establish that he made it or had in his possession, for a purpose which is lawful. "Explosive substance" as defined in the Act: "...............shall be deemed to include any materials for making any explosive substance; also any apparatus, machine, implement, or material used, or intended to be used, or adapted for causing or aiding in causing, any explosion in or with any explosive substance; also any part of any such apparatus, machine, or implement............" The burden shifts to the accused person only if the prosecution is able to establish that what the accused-person made, or was in possession, is an "explosive substance". Therefore, to attract section 5, it must first be shown by the prosecution that what was recovered from the accused persons, i.e., A-1 and A-2, as a direct result of the information furnished by them in their statements under section 27 of the Evidence Act, was "explosive substance". Mr. Therefore, to attract section 5, it must first be shown by the prosecution that what was recovered from the accused persons, i.e., A-1 and A-2, as a direct result of the information furnished by them in their statements under section 27 of the Evidence Act, was "explosive substance". Mr. Mathews, the learned Counsel for the appellants, contended that the prosecution has failed to establish even assuming without conceding that A-1 and A-2 did make statements attributed to them, that the items sent to the Chemical Examiner, or to the Inspector of Explosives (P.W.43) were the identical objects that were seized from their respective houses. It is also the complaint of Mr. Mathews that the searches and seizures have not been made in accordance with the requirements of section 103, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish that the recoveries effected at the houses of A-1 and A-2 were, in fact, "explosive substances." 9. The object of section 103, Criminal Procedure Code, is to see that searches are made properly by the investigating officers and it is for that purpose that the section lays down that it shall be obligatory on the part of the investigating officers to call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search and that, the search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search, and the place at which they were respectively found, shall be prepared by such officers or other persons and signed by such witnesses. The object of making it peremptory on the part of the police officers to make the search in the presence of respectable inhabitants is to ensure that the police officers or those who are changed with the duty of conducting searches, conduct them properly and do no harm or wrong, such as planting of articles by any interested parties, and prevent fabrication of any false evidence. The presence of two respectable witnesses is insisted upon by this provision to act as a safeguard against unfair dealings and to protect and safeguard the interest of the accused persons. The presence of two respectable witnesses is insisted upon by this provision to act as a safeguard against unfair dealings and to protect and safeguard the interest of the accused persons. Admittedly, in this case, though the witnesses to the search and seizure describe the objects recovered by the police at the instance of the accused persons as "bombs" does not bring them within the meaning of "explosive substance" unless examined by one competent to opine whether it is an explosive substance or not. It is for the competent analyst, like the Inspector of Explosives, to say or opine whether the substance recovered by the police are "explosive substances" or not. It is true that certain objects had been sent to P.W.43, the Inspector of Explosives, for examination and opinion, through the Chemical Examiner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and he also opined that the objects sent to him contained an explosive mixture of arsenic sulphide, potassium chlorate and sulphur. Exhibit P-75 is the opinion given by him. It is not enough if the prosecution is able to establish that the objects examined by P.W.43 were found to contain explosive substance, and it has further to establish that what was examined by him (P.W.43) were the identical objects that were seized from the houses of A-1 and A-2 on the information furnished by both of them under two separate statements. 10. We may point out that the prosecution has not been able to show that the material objects recovered from the respective houses of A-1 and A-2 were the identical objects examined by the Inspector of Explosives. This conclusion of ours is borne out by the evidence of the investigating officers themselves. P.W.51 was the person who seized from A-2’s house, six items described as “bombs” in the Panchanama, Exhibit P-47. He put them all in a tin, had it sealed, pasted a slip to the tin on which he obtained the signatures of the panch witnesses. This tin was not sent by him to the Court or to the Director of Explosives, as required under rule 695 of the Police Manual but he sent it to the Central Crime Station for custody. This tin was not sent by him to the Court or to the Director of Explosives, as required under rule 695 of the Police Manual but he sent it to the Central Crime Station for custody. P.W.53 who similarly seized one material object described as “bomb” in Exhibit P-45 and also by the witnesses, put it in a tin and sealed it and attached a slip to the tin with the signatures of P.W.33 and another who were witnesses to the sealing of the tin. The tin in which P.W.53 sealed the material objects, was also not sent to the Court, or to the Director of Explosives as required under the Police Manual but was entrusted to the custody of the Central Crime Station. It is not a case where the two tins with the seals put at the time of the seizure of the material objects were sent without tampering with the seals, to the Director of Explosives or to the Chemical Examiner. P.W.53 requested the Asst. Director of Scientific Section, C.I.D. (P.W.41), to examine the contents of the two tins. There is nothing to show from the evidence of P.W.53 that the panch witnesses who were present at the time of seizure of the material objects from the houses of A-1 and A-2 or P.W.51 who conducted the search and seized the material objects from the house of A-2, were present at the time when the seals were broken and the tins opened, and P.W.41 was asked to give his opinion by P.W.53. WhatP.W.53 did, was not to summon or send for those panch witnesses who had put their signatures on the slips pasted to the sealed tins, but send for some other panch witnesses, i.e., P.W.35 and another. It is for the prosecution to show that, at the time when P.W.53 opened the sealed tins in the presence of P.W.41, the seal put by P.W.51 in the presence of the panch witnesses and the seal put by himself (P.W.53) in the presence of the panch witnesses at the house of A-1, were intact and were not tampered with. The best persons who could have spoken to the fact that the seals were intact and there was no tampering with the seals, were the panch witnesses (P.Ws. 33 and 34) and P.W.51. P.Ws. The best persons who could have spoken to the fact that the seals were intact and there was no tampering with the seals, were the panch witnesses (P.Ws. 33 and 34) and P.W.51. P.Ws. 33 and 34 have not been examined on this aspect, and P.W.51, does not say that he was present at the time. when P.W.53 had the seals put on the tins in which the material objects were kept, removed. P.W.41, the Asst. Director of Scientific Section, C.I.D. cannot possibly vouch for the seals being intact which were put earlier, not in his presence but in the presence of other persons. Further, we are unable to understand, when the rules require that the material objects suspected of explosive substance should be sent to the Director of Explosives, the necessity to send for the Asst. Director of Scientific Section attached to the Crime Investigation Department. The fact that the material objects were examined by the Assistant Director of Scientific Section, after the seals were removed or that P.W.53 had them photographed, will not show that the objects that were seized from the respective houses of A-1 and A-2 were the identical objects that were photographed or were placed before P.W.41 for his examination. The Assistant Director, on examination of the objects in the two tins, advised P.W.53 to send them to the Chemical Examiner. Then he placed them in the same containers and re-sealed them, photographed them, and prepared a panchama (Exhibit P-48) in he presence of P.W.35 and another. His evidence only established that what ho sealed and sent to the Chemical Examiner and who in his turn sent them to the Inspector of Expolsives, contained explosive substances but will not establish that the identical objects that were seized from the respective houses of A-1 and A-2 continued to be in the same form in the containers when they were opened by P.W.53 in the pre- sence of P.W.41 and P.W.35, as there is no independent evidence to show that the original seals put at the houses of A-1 and A-2 on the two tins were intact and there was no tampering at all with the seals between the time when they were sealed, and when they were placed before the Assistant Director (P.W.41) for his examination. As already adverted to, it is to safeguard the interest of the accused that section 103, Criminal Procedure Code, makes it peremptory on the part of the investigating officer to make a search in the presence of two respectable witnesses and obtain their signatures to the search list, as also to the panchnama. Therefore, the prosecution evidence gives room to considerable doubt as to whether, what was sent by P.W.53 to the Chemical Examiner, and through him to the Inspector of Explosives, were identical objects that were recovered from the houses of A-1 and A-2 in direct consequence of the information furnished by them in their respective statements. The failure to break open the seals in the presence of those witnesses before whom the seals were put, and whose signatures were obtained on the slips pasted to the sealed tins, is a serious infirmity and omission in the prosecution case throwing considerable doubt whether the substances which were found to be “explosive substances” by the Inspector of Explosives, were the identical substances that were recovered from the respective houses of A-1 and A-2 on the strength of the information furnished by them in their statements made under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. A-1 and A-2 are therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. 11. The next question to be considered is, whether there is any reliable evidence which calls for our interference with the order acquitting A-1 and A-2 of charges 10, 12 and 14. The witnesses examined to substantiate these charges, are P.Ws. 24 to 30. It is significant to note that P.Ws. 24, 25 and 26 who were sought to be examined as independent witnesses, turned hostile. The Court below, therefore, was left only with the evidence of P.Ws. 27, 28, 29 and 30. P.W.27 is a constable attached to the Mahankali Police Station, where A-1 and A-2 were interrogated. P.W.28 is a constable attached to the Headquarters Police and a van-driver. P.W.29 is a Head Constable attached to Mahankali Police Station. P.W.30 is another constable working at the Mahankali Police Station during the relevant period. Their evidence will show that before A-1 and A-2 were put up for identification parade by a Magistrate, they had occasion to see them frequently when they (A-1 and A-2) were in the police custody. It is because of the fact that these four witnesses (P.Ws. P.W.30 is another constable working at the Mahankali Police Station during the relevant period. Their evidence will show that before A-1 and A-2 were put up for identification parade by a Magistrate, they had occasion to see them frequently when they (A-1 and A-2) were in the police custody. It is because of the fact that these four witnesses (P.Ws. 27 to 30) had occasion to see A-1 and A-2 when they were in Mahankali Police Station, that the Additional Sessions Judge was not prepared to attach any weight to the subsequent identification parade held by P.W.47, the Third City Magistrate, Hyderabad, as their identification of A-1 and A-2 as the persons responsible for throwing the bombs and causing the death of the deceased Syed Farooq Ali, or injuries to P.W.29, or damage to the vehicle had no significance whatsoever. It was therefore, found not safe to rely upon their evidence. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 and A-2 are guilty of charges Nos. 10, 12, and 14 framed against them. 12. In the result, the appeal preferred by A-1 and A-2 (Crl. Appeal No. 887 of 1969) is allowed and the convictions and sentences passed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, under charge No. 16, are set aside and they are acquitted. The Appeal preferred by the State (Crl. Appeal No. 286 of 1970) is dismissed. A.B.K. ----- Accused’s appeal allowed; State appeal dismissed.