JUDGMENT Appellant was charged for offence under sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa by judgment dated 6.4.1987 passed in S.T. No. 48 of 1986 found the appellant guilty for offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and fine of Rs. 300/-, failing which to suffer further RI for six months. Appellant being aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal. PW 1 Shankar Singh has stated in his evidence that when the appellant was apprehended by the officer-incharge PW 2 Rakesh Mohan Shukla, she tried to throwaway the bag but the officer-incharge caught hold of her hand. On search it was found that the appellant has kept dynamite bomb, dynamite caps and dynamite cap lamps in the bag. Thereafter a seizure list was prepared (Ex.P-1) which was signed by him as also one Shyam Singh. PW 2 Rakesh Mohan Shukla has stated in his evidence that after recording the secret information in the Roznamcha he went alongwith the witnesses to the Bus stand and on enquiry from the appellant she disclosed her name to be Ramkunwar Bai. On questioning appellant stated that it is of no concern for this witness to know about the contents of the bag, but on further enquiry she tried to throwaway the bag but she was caught. According to this witness when she got the bag opened in presence of the witnesses, he found 10 pieces of dynamite bomb, 40 pieces of dynamite cap and 11 pieces of dynamite cap lamps in the bag which was seized and seizure memo was prepared which contains his signature as also that of the witnesses. This witness has further proved the report given by the Controller of Explosives in which it has been stated as follows :-- "On opening, one of them was found to contain 10 cartridges (200 mm long, 25 mm dia each) having waxy paper cover printed "SG-80, Torch Brand, Gomia" containing gelatinous mass inside, the other parcel contained black cord 10 pieces (each 200 mm long) having black powder inside and the third parcel contained Aluminium shining capsules 40 Nos. (each 36 mm long and 6 mm dia). They were identified as special gelatine, an explosive of Class 3, safety fuse, an explosive of Class 6 Divn. (each 36 mm long and 6 mm dia). They were identified as special gelatine, an explosive of Class 3, safety fuse, an explosive of Class 6 Divn. 1 and ordinary detonator an explosive of Class 6 Divn. 3 as defined under Schedule I of-Explosives Rules, 1983. A licence is obligatory for manufacture, possession, sale etc. of special gelatine, safety fuse and detonator as provided under rule 113 of aforesaid Rules, save as provided under rule 114(I)(c) for Safety Fuse only. The bonafide uses of special gelatine, safety fuse and detonator are blasting in mine. The special gelatine and safety fuse were destroyed by me at Piplod, the detonators were received in this office through Shri Ramesh Chandra, PC No. 234 of PS Piplod on 19.5.86 through a sealed parcel, seals intact which were also used up in testing." Nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellant. I have perused the record. A perusal of the report of the Controller of Explosives shows beyond all reasonable doubts that the substance sent for examination to the Controller of Explosives are explosive substance. Evidence of PW 1 Shankar Singh and PW 2 Rakesh Mohan Shukla clearly show that the same was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Prosecution having proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the substance recovered from the possession of the appellant is explosive substance, the learned Judge was right in convicting her for offence under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. I do not find any merit in this appeal.