Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 304 (MAD)

Ram Singh v. State

1989-04-28

ARUNACHALAM

body1989
Judgment : Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.232 of 1988 (Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Nanguneri) now pending as C.C.No.96 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor. The, Prosecution against him was initiated on a final report filed by the respondent for an offence under Sec.5(3)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. The allegation against him is that on 6.4.1988 at about 11.30 a.m., at door N0.51-A, Main Road, Valliyoor belonging to one Thangappan, which the petitioner had taken on rental basis, had kept certain explosive substances detailed in the records without licence. The substances which were seized and are concerned in this crime were directed to be returned to the petitioner by an order dated 21.6.1988 made in Crl.M.P.No.1880 of 1988, by the trial Magistrate. The return appears to be on the basis that keeping the property required caution and as acid was leaking from the property the petitioner will have to keep in it safe custody and produce it as and when required by the court. This petition seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this court to quash the proceedings in the trial Court. 2. Two contentions were urged before me, by Thiru R.A.Dhanasekaran, Learned counsel for the petitioner. The first is that Sec.5(3)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act had been repeated with effect from 2.3.1983 and as a matter of fact after the said date, the Act is called the Explosives Act and not the Indian Explosives Act and that, therefore, a charge cannot be maintained under a repealed enactment. 3. The second contention is that the petitioner is a holder of a licence for several years to stock and sell explosives. The licence was produced before the lower court and is produced before me as well. The petitioner has also produced before me a letter dated 16th May 1986 from the Government of India, Department of Explosives, Shastri Bhavan, Madras-6 to indicate that even on 15.2.86 the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence to the concerned authority as ordained by Rule 165(3) of the Explosive Rules. The petitioner has also produced before me a letter dated 16th May 1986 from the Government of India, Department of Explosives, Shastri Bhavan, Madras-6 to indicate that even on 15.2.86 the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence to the concerned authority as ordained by Rule 165(3) of the Explosive Rules. The rule reads that every application for the renewal of a licence shall be made so as to reach the licensing authority or the authority empowered to renew the licence at least 30 days before the date on which the licence expires and if the application is so made, the licence shall be deemed to be in force until such date as the licensing authority renews the licence or until an intimation that the renewal of the licence is refused has been communicated to the applicant. In this case that the licence had been renewed can admit no doubt and therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel, that the petitioner has not committed any offence either under the Act or the Rules. 4. Thiru T.Munirathina Naidu, appearing for the learned Government Advocate contends that reference to the licence and its renewal will pertain to the realm of appreciation of evidence and this Court cannot go into that aspect by invoking the inherent powers. 5. I have carefully considered the contentions of either counsel. Though normally this court will be hesitant to accept documents which have not been legally brought on record in cases of this nature whereby non-application of mind the prosecution has been launched by the respondent under a repealed enactment relating to an offence under a non-existent section, interests of justice require that the material placed by the petitioner, which cannot be and which had not been disputed may have to be looked into. If only the prosecuting agency had applied its mind as to existence of the licence or otherwise, the very prosecution itself might not have been initiated. It is in cases of this type that the powers under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. may have to be invoked to secure the ends of justice. 6. I am satisfied that the petitioner is a licence holder to possess and sell explosives and this prosecution is totally misconceived. It is in cases of this type that the powers under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. may have to be invoked to secure the ends of justice. 6. I am satisfied that the petitioner is a licence holder to possess and sell explosives and this prosecution is totally misconceived. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.232 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Nanguneri (now pending as C.C.No.96 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor) are liable to be and are accordingly quashed.